Banning Religion - Elton John
- Thread starter mrhnau
- Start date
Religion, like any organising impulse in human interaction, is a two edged sword.
On the one hand it can get people pulling together, working towards a common goal and making sacrifices for the benefit of each other. All most laudible outcomes of a unifying philosophical idea.
On the other hand, because of that very same effect, it can cause the organised group to be hostile or dismissive of those that do not think the same way.
That is especially true of 'proslytising' faiths and those that see their way as the 'one true way'.
Of course not all faiths suffer from this effect and some actively promote self-enlightenment rather than group-concensus-dogma but it does seem an unfortunate side-effect of the underpinning ideals of many religions (especially as the core tenet is generally along the lines of "Be excellent to one another"
).
On the one hand it can get people pulling together, working towards a common goal and making sacrifices for the benefit of each other. All most laudible outcomes of a unifying philosophical idea.
On the other hand, because of that very same effect, it can cause the organised group to be hostile or dismissive of those that do not think the same way.
That is especially true of 'proslytising' faiths and those that see their way as the 'one true way'.
Of course not all faiths suffer from this effect and some actively promote self-enlightenment rather than group-concensus-dogma but it does seem an unfortunate side-effect of the underpinning ideals of many religions (especially as the core tenet is generally along the lines of "Be excellent to one another"
).
Religion like any other organization has extremests in its midst. There are countless religious people out there, I am sure, that have no problems with gay people and whatever lifestyle they choose to live (myself included) as long as it involves consenting adults, the same requirements for heterosexuals.
Unfortunetally, the extremests tend to be the loud people, and thus those are the only people you hear. I am a "live and let live" kind of person, you won't see me speaking at some rally extolling tolerance or whatever of gays at a podium, but you will see the extremest extolling the evils or immorality of the gay lifestyle (whatever that is) at the top of his/her lungs.
So though Elton John may have some valid concerns, they I think are a bit off base and I think that is solution is no solution. It is not the religion that is the problem, it is the interpretation of the religious teachings...Those who truly hate gays merely use religion as an excuse (Haggard anyone?) and if religion disappeared the excuse would just change but the hatred and intolerance would stay...
Now I am sure there are those who do think the gay lifestyle or whatever is bad because that is what their faith says and if the faith's position/teachings changed they might as well. But I fear that is something that would be a hard battle....and in reality those people open to change are typically not the people who again are complaining about it to every person they can find at every opportunity.
Unfortunetally, the extremests tend to be the loud people, and thus those are the only people you hear. I am a "live and let live" kind of person, you won't see me speaking at some rally extolling tolerance or whatever of gays at a podium, but you will see the extremest extolling the evils or immorality of the gay lifestyle (whatever that is) at the top of his/her lungs.
So though Elton John may have some valid concerns, they I think are a bit off base and I think that is solution is no solution. It is not the religion that is the problem, it is the interpretation of the religious teachings...Those who truly hate gays merely use religion as an excuse (Haggard anyone?) and if religion disappeared the excuse would just change but the hatred and intolerance would stay...
Now I am sure there are those who do think the gay lifestyle or whatever is bad because that is what their faith says and if the faith's position/teachings changed they might as well. But I fear that is something that would be a hard battle....and in reality those people open to change are typically not the people who again are complaining about it to every person they can find at every opportunity.
At first sight the title seemed very odd! If you ban religions human nature is such that we'd only find something else to hate/love/kill/worship etc. Most religions don't condone hatred and bigotry, they put forward a peaceful message, as always it's people that are the problem. Perhaps ban people lol? Okay that's facetious I know but until we sort ourselves out, take responsibility for ourselves and stop blaming religions and beliefs for our problems the world won't change. People say "oh how can God let famines/wars/massacres happen?" He doesn't - we do. Standing over a child dying from starvation we can't say it's our God's (which ever you believe in) will, again it's not.Whether you believe in a God or not, it's clear we were given brains and bodies capable of sorting things out for ourselves. Religious wars are rarely that,the underlying cause is usually over land or power with religion being an easy label to unify the people.Can you put your hand on your hearts and honestly say the invasion of Kuwait was nothing to do with Saddam wanting oil and the re- taking by the Allies had nothing to do with oil? They could have all been Christians and things would not have changed. One thing led to another with revenge being sought by Iraqi and other groups, Islam being the label they could unite people with. "Look this is an attack on all Moslems etc, rally with us to save yourselves" The underlying cause of this war is oil and money not religion.
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
i agree with elton john's base, but not his conclusion.
i have a rich spiritual life, as do most people involved with martial arts. relgions (which we'll define for the purposes of this discussion as organized religion) seem to get in the way of personal spiritual development.
where there's a centralized power you get canon. where you get canon you get dogma. where you get dogma you get blind hatred, jingoism and all that other lovely stuff.
so yeah, i agree that organized relgion is often harmful. but to 'ban' it (as if one could really do so) shows the same kind of reactionary hatefulness that he's wanting to get rid of.
i have a rich spiritual life, as do most people involved with martial arts. relgions (which we'll define for the purposes of this discussion as organized religion) seem to get in the way of personal spiritual development.
where there's a centralized power you get canon. where you get canon you get dogma. where you get dogma you get blind hatred, jingoism and all that other lovely stuff.
so yeah, i agree that organized relgion is often harmful. but to 'ban' it (as if one could really do so) shows the same kind of reactionary hatefulness that he's wanting to get rid of.
In countries where religions are banned there is no letup in persecution of anyone the authorities want rid of. We could get together people on this site, make ourselves a religion where we said everyone has to be tolerant and pleasant to each other. We could share our money and possessions, have all the best intentions in world but someone somewhere would decide they wanted to be in charge, to change the tenets,that they knew better,that everyone should join us etc. It may take a while perhaps when the founders have passed on but the religion would be changed, human nature would have taken over. It always does sadly.
Many religions contain the tenet that their members should reproduce in quantity - that being a prime method of gaining new members of the religion.
Until very recently (medical advances, adoption, etc) people who were gay could not have children - thus, any religion that pushed its members to procreate abundantly is generally anti-gay; they are also, as a group, anti-contraception.
Given the concerns about over-population that currently exist, promoting large families for the sake of religion is, in my opinion, a poor choice for the planet, although I understand the socio-cultural context that caused those religions to make that choice - but I think that the religions need to update themselves and quit pushing procreation for procreation's sake.
This would remove the bans against contraception, as well as removing much of the bias against gay relationships - both were banned because they prevented procreation... in addition, societies don't generally write laws against things that don't happen, or haven't happened in the past - so both practices must, presumably, have been widespread enough to warrant laws against them at the time the laws were written, several thousand years in the past. The arguments against contraception and gay relationships no longer exist - and, in fact, it is in the best interests of the human race and the planet if we drop our birthrate significantly - something both contraception and gay relationships do quite well.
Until very recently (medical advances, adoption, etc) people who were gay could not have children - thus, any religion that pushed its members to procreate abundantly is generally anti-gay; they are also, as a group, anti-contraception.
Given the concerns about over-population that currently exist, promoting large families for the sake of religion is, in my opinion, a poor choice for the planet, although I understand the socio-cultural context that caused those religions to make that choice - but I think that the religions need to update themselves and quit pushing procreation for procreation's sake.
This would remove the bans against contraception, as well as removing much of the bias against gay relationships - both were banned because they prevented procreation... in addition, societies don't generally write laws against things that don't happen, or haven't happened in the past - so both practices must, presumably, have been widespread enough to warrant laws against them at the time the laws were written, several thousand years in the past. The arguments against contraception and gay relationships no longer exist - and, in fact, it is in the best interests of the human race and the planet if we drop our birthrate significantly - something both contraception and gay relationships do quite well.
I have only this to say. In the new testament it doesn't say anywhere that you had to be religious, "You have to receive me to go to the father." That is the gist not a direct quote.
That doesn't say you have to go to a protestant, catholic or any other "Church". However, it does say that to fellowship in his name is a good thing. You can do that via phone, email, letter, in person....whatever.
I don't know with all the "mess" going on with organized religion I just can't subscribe to it. I at one time had been a firm believer that the catholics had it correctly. However, with the publicity of all the kid touching priests and homosexual protestant preachers. I just can't subscribe to a formalized religion.
I had a priest that was a Naval Captain once tell me that "If you go to mass just to show up, you get nothing out of it. If you go there to try and be closer to God then you are there for the right reason."
That doesn't say you have to go to a protestant, catholic or any other "Church". However, it does say that to fellowship in his name is a good thing. You can do that via phone, email, letter, in person....whatever.
I don't know with all the "mess" going on with organized religion I just can't subscribe to it. I at one time had been a firm believer that the catholics had it correctly. However, with the publicity of all the kid touching priests and homosexual protestant preachers. I just can't subscribe to a formalized religion.
I had a priest that was a Naval Captain once tell me that "If you go to mass just to show up, you get nothing out of it. If you go there to try and be closer to God then you are there for the right reason."
fireman00
Brown Belt
Its amazing that he expects religious folks to give up their beliefs and embrace something that they don't condone.
Catholics are told they should be compasionate towards gays but not condone homosexual behavior.
Catholics are told they should be compasionate towards gays but not condone homosexual behavior.
- Thread Starter
- #11
Yeah, I understand that... for someone wanting others to be compassionate and understanding, I don't really sense him being passionate and understanding of religious people...
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
micah
Yellow Belt
he has no basis for that statement, he definitely doesnt know the ins and outs of EVERY religion in existence.
Similar threads
