Religion

[Dill_Pickle]

One important moral issue with organized religion is that it gives some people power over others.

[Guest]

I struggled with faith all my life until I realized a few things. First, religion is a heritage as much as a dogma. Second, the value of some things is not in their literal truth.

I'm a Catholic. I've prayed in several of the world's great cathedrals, I've heard the Mass in multiple languages, and whether I believe in the literal truth of transubstantiation, I find value and community in taking the Eucharist. I don't go often enough, but I leave Mass feeling better than I do most days, and with a better sense of being connected to something - to a past, to a tradition, to our common humanity. I don't think religion is necessary to be a moral person, but it does help me to be a more more a moral person because it serves as a reminder that I am called to listen to my better angels.

I don't have to choose between science and faith. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. The only thing that bothers me about religion is when it is coercive, and when it is used to divide instead of unite. I have no patience for fundamentalism of any kind, and I still can't believe how much anti-Catholic sentiment exists today, as though the Reformation is still being fought.

By that same token, I don't care for non-believers who want to have a debate on religion to make themselves feel superior or to demonstrate their intelligence. The hypocrisy from a group that is so insistent on their right to not have their beliefs questioned is irritating to say the least. That's not all atheists - I described myself as an atheist for most of my life - but it's more than a few. I do think people grow out of that tendency as they get old, thank goodness.

On the whole, I think it's a shame that religion is taught to children as sets of rules and facts that have to be taken whole and at face value. There is a vigorous philosophical debate on revealed and rational truth in religion, especially Catholicism, that has been turned into a zero-sum epistemology when really these types of truth are complementary.

[Diapered Jason]

By that same token, I don't care for non-believers who want to have a debate on religion to make themselves feel superior or to demonstrate their intelligence. The hypocrisy from a group that is so insistent on their right to not have their beliefs questioned is irritating to say the least. That's not all atheists - I described myself as an atheist for most of my life - but it's more than a few. I do think people grow out of that tendency as they get old, thank goodness.

[Guest]

Jason, you meant "persecuted." I don't feel either prosecuted or persecuted. I have no illusions that collectively, those professing a faith have trespassed on the rights of those professing no faith. I favor a strict separation of church and state. I don't want to see any faith enacted into law. I side with the activists, and I see no reason why humanism and religion should be considered separate.

What I do feel is annoyed. What annoys me are the people who want to attack faith because it's different from what they believe. I suspect that's the very thing that bothers most atheists, but some of them have trouble projecting that same emotion outward.

I don't especially care about what others believe; I don't even care that much about what other Catholics believe. But there are some atheists that want to validate there own intelligence by attacking what I believe, or really, what they think I believe.

[Bettypooh]

What annoys me are the people who want to attack faith because it's different from what they believe. I suspect that's the very thing that bothers most atheists, but some of them have trouble projecting that same emotion outward.

[Baby Brian]

I feel your pain! To me there should be more than "a seperation between church and State"- there should be no recognition made of anything religious and no special rights or benefits rendered to religious groups or organizations (including those with no religious beliefs). It is only when that is done that we will have any chance at ending the continual arguing and conflict that religion (or the lack thereof) causes.

So done, you will still be free to believe whatever you want but you won't be able to hide behind it if you err in the eyes of the law which should take precedence over all other things No more loudspeaker bearing yea-hoos on the streetcorner disturbing the peace, no more suited stupids knocking on your door selling their brand of religion, no more hiding wages paid and possesions held fron the tax man- only like that can there true equality for everyone. And then since there will be no worldly benefits to religion, only those who truly believe will bother to participate which will actually improve those religions from the inside out.

Religion is a personal thing and should be kept there

Bettypooh

Seconded.

Though if it were possible I'd go the extra step and outlaw all types of religion or religious references in public. You could still practice and or believe what you want, just so long as no one else has to see you doing it. If that were possible.

[Diapered Jason]

I'm an atheist, but I stand behind the people's choice of religion and to express it freely in public.

[Guest]

I take no issue with public displays of religion.

[Bettypooh]

I do take issue with public displays of certain religious practices when they do disrupt the other people around the practitioner or cause them discomfort. I don't otherwise believe in restricting religion in public- it does reek of Stalinism to do that As far as taxation, if there is no recognition of religion then they would only have to prove tax-exempt status was deserved to file for it- the difference would be that just being a Religion would not grant them that automatically.

[Hookedondiapers]

I am agnostic.

I believe that all religious texts are fairy tales written to control the masses.

Most of them blatantly copy earlier stories, and change a few names.

[Bettypooh]

I'm an agnostic dyslexic insomniac- I stay up all night wondering whether or not there really is a dog Just some humor to lighten up the topic Please continue

[kevindhca]

A big problem with organized religion is most do not accept the separation of church and state.

People who belong to faith groups are expected to toe the party line when elected and then to work to integrate faith into government.

Make decisions and vote according to evidence or for the greater good of society and you're excommunicated.

People who are interested in power will never limit themselves to a single area of influence.

[willnotwill]

It's the opiate of the masses.

[Baby Brian]

It's the opiate of the masses.

[Dill_Pickle]

Miss Betty:

The problem with public displays of religion is that they rather easily become coercive, especially in the hands of leaders, and very noticeably, school districts.

[Bettypooh]

And yet those 'displays' need not be done in a manner which disrupts others. When I take Mom to lunch on Sundays she and I pray before eating- just a quiet short sentence or two with heads bowed done for her, as I see no need to do such. No offense is intended for anyone else and it hasn't offended anyone that I am aware of yet. That is how it should be done for religion is a personal matter, not a public one I too am a fundamentalist (not in the co-opted usage of the word some over-zealous believers claim themselves to be) but in the truest meaning of the word. If you get the fundamentals wrong then everything that follows will be at least equally wrong, and it's usually worse

[DiaperPony]

Ex-mormon atheist.

[Born Yesterday]

Science is not generally believed on proof.

[DiaperPony]

Nobody has to believe anything and they are free to change their beliefs or non-beliefs at any time. What someone believes in doesn't have to make logical sense. However, people cannot escape judgment (by other people) for the consequences of what they believe in, or when they try to force others to worship in their way.

[Baby Brian]

What someone believes in doesn't have to make logical sense.

[DiaperPony]

I wasn't attempting to bash religion, even if I don't believe in it anymore. It just seemed to me that a false dichotomy was being set up, something along the lines of "you must either accept science or religion". If someone is religious, they can still accept scientific findings, if someone isn't, they can still reject scientific findings. And it's not all or nothing, either. A person can accept parts of a religion or parts of science, or parts of several religions, whatever they choose. To someone else, what they choose might not seem to make sense at all, or might seem harmful. That's where the judging comes in

From my admittedly narrow view, it seemed like mormons accepted science just fine, but if there was a conflict between the church and science, then the church won. For some, that was no big deal. For me, it had to make sense, so it had to be justified somehow. It turns out that the human brain is really good at figuring out how to do that, too. So as far as being logical, I know I fall way short.

Personally, I don't fall into the camp of "scientists claim something, so I must believe them". That just feels like another religion to me. For example, the whole global warming thing seemed politically motivated, with shaming involved, so that turned me off bigtime. Doesn't mean I've closed my mind to the possibility, but I'm not rushing out and buying a Prius either.

[Dill_Pickle]

Miss Betty:

I like your kind of fundamentalism!

[oliver d]

Atheist Absolutly no religios believe at all I see religion as a invention by man to control each other and to justfy his existance

[Shotgun Diplomat]

Bettypooh, I have been reading your posts with enthusiasm. I would just like to say that you have made all of your points with tact and grace. Thank-you.

[Boopie]

I grew up in a Catholic home