|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Soooooooo, religion isn't dangerous?
I know, I know, it is experienced subjectively and one ought not categorize all religious followers are dangerous but I certainly see evidence that believing in a higher power who enforces Truth can be problematic at times. Actually, I think a few wars may have been fought (and will be fought, and are being fought) over this very subject...
Not too mention that it inspires people to burn sh%t down and kill over bloody cartoons. AND assassinate abortion doctors. AND generally annoy rational people the world over with painfully obvious inconsistencies (as Mith has demonstrated).
And being a grownup with an imaginary friend is a tad pathetic.
To preempt criticism, nationalism is also dangerous, and so is eating too many big macs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
BTW, what do you think of Sufism? |
I don't really know enough to comment. I do know though that most muslims are not Sufis, and are thus liable to come under the sway of orthodox, literalist Islam. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
And being a grownup with an imaginary friend is a tad pathetic. |
Are you talking about God? So I don't misunderstand you, do you think the concept of God is childish? Or what precisely are you saying? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
Quote: |
And being a grownup with an imaginary friend is a tad pathetic. |
Are you talking about God? So I don't misunderstand you, do you think the concept of God is childish? Or what precisely are you saying? |
Kind of, and not really. I suppose one can believe in a higher power to fill in some blanks. There are a crap load of unanswered questions regarding life, and the origins of, that are very easily answered if you presuppose a 'planner'.
But to believe, as absolute Truth, in the bearded man your parents and society tell you about is childish. Yes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote: |
Kuros wrote: |
Quote: |
And being a grownup with an imaginary friend is a tad pathetic. |
Are you talking about God? So I don't misunderstand you, do you think the concept of God is childish? Or what precisely are you saying? |
Kind of, and not really. I suppose one can believe in a higher power to fill in some blanks. There are a crap load of unanswered questions regarding life, and the origins of, that are very easily answered if you presuppose a 'planner'.
But to believe, as absolute Truth, in the bearded man your parents and society tell you about is childish. Yes. |
Okay, I am glad I asked for clarification. For evidence for the idea that you should restrain your first trollish instincts and be sure you understand what the person is saying.
Yes, a bearded man in the sky, an embodied grandfatherly incarnation of truth absolute seems at least a tad peurile.
Still, how do we get from that to 'religion is dangerous?' Are you asserting that many people do believe in Grandpa Absolute Truth in itself? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nono,
just that, for a good portion of the human population, devine truth is too much to peacefully handle.
I'm not trying to take an extreme position here.
Religion is an immensely powerful tool, and given the seemingly boundless ability of humans to hate and inspire violence, I am a tad uncomfortable with expressions of absolute faith and Truth which can escalate hate and violence to the realm of the divine. I don't know if the careful application of reason can do the same.
Reminds me of an old John Denver song;
"The fathers sewed the uniforms their sons wore to war". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose having no religion is much safer. That's why people in societies where religion is basically banned feel so safe. I know I always feel threatened when hospitals are set up, money is collected for the poor, soup is served to the hungry, clothes donated to the needy... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
flakfizer wrote: |
I suppose having no religion is much safer. That's why people in societies where religion is basically banned feel so safe. I know I always feel threatened when hospitals are set up, money is collected for the poor, soup is served to the hungry, clothes donated to the needy... |
Wow, I don't know where to begin with that...
There is a pretty big difference between living in a voluntarily secular society and one (likely a communist dictatorship) where religion is banned.
But, I will suggest to you, that Free-thinkers have just as much incentive to take care of the poor as do the religious. Or maybe I'm wrong, and only adults with imaginary friends care about humanity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer

Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote: |
flakfizer wrote: |
I suppose having no religion is much safer. That's why people in societies where religion is basically banned feel so safe. I know I always feel threatened when hospitals are set up, money is collected for the poor, soup is served to the hungry, clothes donated to the needy... |
Wow, I don't know where to begin with that...
There is a pretty big difference between living in a voluntarily secular society and one (likely a communist dictatorship) where religion is banned.
But, I will suggest to you, that Free-thinkers have just as much incentive to take care of the poor as do the religious. Or maybe I'm wrong, and only adults with imaginary friends care about humanity. |
It appears that you equate "free-thinkers" with the non-religious implying that no one could think freely and choose to be religious. So, I should probably not waste any more time here, but, what the hey. As for taking care of the poor, take a few minutes and look up how many charities are religious or were founded by devout believers. Take a look at this article about giving. http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html Here is another interesting link: http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=451 According to the above site, its info should not be taken as authoritative, however, at the bottom is a list of many sources they used. Check them out. For example, the information that "Religious observers (those who attend weekly services) give 3.4 percent of their income annually, while nonreligious people give between 1.1 and 1.4 percent," comes from the Gallup Organization.
You could also check out which States are the most generous according to the Catalogue for Philanthropy http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005 (Note that the top 25 States were all "red States" and quite possibly full of "adults with imaginary friends," while the stingiest States (New England) are supposedly full of "free-thinkers.")
Don't like these sources? Just research yourself about how many charities are religious or were founded by the religious and look up for yourself research data on what type of people tend to give more. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: Above it all
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
flakfizer wrote: |
BJWD wrote: |
flakfizer wrote: |
I suppose having no religion is much safer. That's why people in societies where religion is basically banned feel so safe. I know I always feel threatened when hospitals are set up, money is collected for the poor, soup is served to the hungry, clothes donated to the needy... |
Wow, I don't know where to begin with that...
There is a pretty big difference between living in a voluntarily secular society and one (likely a communist dictatorship) where religion is banned.
But, I will suggest to you, that Free-thinkers have just as much incentive to take care of the poor as do the religious. Or maybe I'm wrong, and only adults with imaginary friends care about humanity. |
It appears that you equate "free-thinkers" with the non-religious implying that no one could think freely and choose to be religious. So, I should probably not waste any more time here, but, what the hey. As for taking care of the poor, take a few minutes and look up how many charities are religious or were founded by devout believers. Take a look at this article about giving. http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks_print.html Here is another interesting link: http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=451 According to the above site, its info should not be taken as authoritative, however, at the bottom is a list of many sources they used. Check them out. For example, the information that "Religious observers (those who attend weekly services) give 3.4 percent of their income annually, while nonreligious people give between 1.1 and 1.4 percent," comes from the Gallup Organization.
You could also check out which States are the most generous according to the Catalogue for Philanthropy http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005 (Note that the top 25 States were all "red States" and quite possibly full of "adults with imaginary friends," while the stingiest States (New England) are supposedly full of "free-thinkers.")
Don't like these sources? Just research yourself about how many charities are religious or were founded by the religious and look up for yourself research data on what type of people tend to give more. |
The problem is how the aid is distributed. Often it comes with a side serving of religion, and plays a part in destroying indiginous cultural traditions. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The problem is how the aid is distributed. Often it comes with a side serving of religion, and plays a part in destroying indiginous cultural traditions.
|
Make sure you know which cultural traditions are being destroyed before you label it as bad. There are a number of cultural traditions that have been rightly destroyed and good riddance to them.
Gang rape of a woman who had sex outside of her marriage and burial of her alive afterwards would rank near the top. Not allowing a pregnant woman or one with a new born child outside after dark incase an evil spirit sucked out their soul might be another. Or maybe an ancient one, in which a newly married woman had to prostitute herself outside a temple for one day.
Be understanding to the fact that not all indiginous cultural traditions were good and if giving help to a community allows them (evil ones) to be removed helps then I say give money. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bignate

Joined: 30 Apr 2003 Location: Hell's Ditch
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting and informative article Joo, thanks for the post. I agree with the premise that radical Islam's influence upon Islam has resulted in much of the problems that we see today....it also made me think about the West's influence as well, a kind of polar opposite, and wether that is neccessarily the best influence as well....from an article I have been reading...
Islam Is Not the Solution (or the Problem)- by Daniel Brumberg
It basically sets out to examine "[t]he quest to repair, reinterpret, reform, or otherwise fix Islam" and the problems that go along with this.
Quote: |
Who today would assail a policy that, to its credit, has broken with the ��soft bigotry of low expectations�� that long guided Washington��s
approach to the Middle East? As President George W. Bush has repeatedly stated, it is wrong to assume that ��millions of men and women are condemned by history or culture to live in despotism.�� Yet, even if bigoted notions about an intrinsically ��authoritarian�� Islam are dangerous, so too is the facile conviction that, with the proper formula and a dose of wise clerical leadership, Islam and democracy will join forces. One should be wary of replacing an outdated ethnocentrism with an equally simplistic universalism. |
The author points out that there are inherent problems when trying to force change upon Islam for several reasons:
1. As seen in Palestine, the attempt to spread one cultures ideals upon another often runs into complications when dealing with those peoples who "many of whom espouse ideas profoundly at odds with U.S. notions of democracy and freedom"
2. That by infering that Islam is the problem, there is a tendancy to over simplify the problem, ignoring other facets and nuances of the issue..such as ethnicity, tribalism, secularism, the seperation of mosque and state, Arab nationalism, etc.
3. By denoting Islam as the problem, pro-democracy supporters, have effectively alienated those they wish to transform, while at the same time inadvertently supporting the more fundamental Islamists in the process.
Quote: |
In practical terms, this means helping non-Islamists build constituencies and effective political parties, because it is only through the
carrots and sticks of real political competition that Islamists will see the logic behind shelving their ideological priorities in favor of a system of compromise and multiparty coalition government. The examples of Turkey and Indonesia amply demonstrate just how critical such institutional incentives and constraints are to promoting democracy. Although their democracies are far from consolidated and the Islamic parties that participate or lead their governments are not as united or as ideologically coherent as some suggest, Turkey and Indonesia nevertheless illustrate that, for democracy to have any hope in the Arab world, it is not Islam that must be fixed, but politics itself. |
From this he moves on to what he sees as Islamic Modernization and the need to wholly understand Islam, rather than taking a partition and interpret stance:
Quote: |
The Islamic modernists�� approach pivots around the basic idea that it is both possible and vital to distinguish between the timeless, core values of Islam and the way such norms are interpreted to address the evolving political, legal, social, and economic needs of each generation. Values such as tolerance, justice, equality, and moderation are identified from a comprehensive or holistic reading of the Koran, rather than from any particular line or paragraph. Islamic modernists argue that a literalist reading of any injunction in the Koran can be deeply antagonistic to Islam because that interpretation conflates the Koran��s ageless ideals with the time-specific tasks that Muhammad faced. |
It is through this type of literalist interpretation of Islam, that we get both Islamic Fundamentalism and the Islamaphobia, that cherishes the idea that Islam is the problem... The liberal Islamic Modernist also runs into other problems...
Quote: |
Globalization has reinforced such paranoia by expanding the gap between the haves and have-nots. Globalization��s losers fill the urban slums of Rabat, Algiers, Cairo, and Amman, creating an enormous pool of potential recruits for illiberal Islamism, whereas the winners are found among the Westernized intelligentsia and small-business community. Is it any wonder then that, when Islamic modernists raise their pens, they often provoke a counterattack from illiberal Islamists? Not only does the latter group have the advantage of numbers and organization, but it also
benefits from the belief that its adherents are defending the identity of the Islamic umma (community) and not their lily-livered modernist
opponents. These perceptions have proven disastrous for Islamic modernists.
Caught between illiberal Islamists and autocratic regimes, some of which have actually tolerated or even assisted the former in an effort to silence liberal thinkers, the modernists have faced two unfavorable options: retreat or exile. |
Thus the author concludes that though, there is a need to democratize, this should not be done in a conflictive way against Islam, but one that accepts both Islamic and Non-Islamic entities of the political and legal forces within the desired area of change. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Location: somewhere in Korea
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
flakfizer wrote: |
I suppose having no religion is much safer. That's why people in societies where religion is basically banned feel so safe. I know I always feel threatened when hospitals are set up, money is collected for the poor, soup is served to the hungry, clothes donated to the needy... |
Two things.
#1
My sunday school teacher went on about charities when I was younger. Obviously I can't remember it verbatim, but it went something like this...
"If you give money to a charity and then brag about it or hold it above someone to prove you are better, you no longer gave to a charity and just paid for the right to feel better about yourself."
#2
How many Christians give just to feel better about themselves? Same for non-religious people? How many Christians give out of obligation to make them look better as Christians and have a better shot for heaven?
Then you have tax breaks or peer pressure (if you are in church and everyone gives $10 and you put $2 in, people would look, but the same goes for a secular company handing around the donation jar).
This isn't an attack on Christian or non-religious donating. But there are many, many factors that have not and are almost impossible to account for, like in those articles shown in your post after the one I quoted. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="laogaiguk] (1) How many Christians give out of obligation to make them look better as Christians and have a better shot for heaven?
(2)Then you have tax breaks or peer pressure (if you are in church and everyone gives $10 and you put $2 in, people would look, but the same goes for a secular company handing around the donation jar).
This isn't an attack on Christian or non-religious donating. But there are many, many factors that have not and are almost impossible to account for, like in those articles shown in your post after the one I quoted.[/quote]
(numbers are mine)
1. I don't know of a single Christian who thinks they will have "a better shot for heaven" by donating to charity. The Bible itself states that good works without faith is dead. It is not enough merely being "a good person". Belief or faith is the requirement. Good works may come from that. But belief is the cornerstone.
2. I'm pretty sure you don't get much of a tax break for $10. And some Western governments are said to be thinking about reducing tax breaks for charity (if they haven't already)
Sure some "Christians" may give to feel better about themselves, same as non-religious people. That doesn't explain why Christians consistantly outspend non-religious people when it comes to giving to charity. In fact hardly any of those "other" factors account for that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hijacking Islam ... That's a bit like riding the village bicycle.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|