Religion - Sacrosanct or Debateable?

[CoryKS]

In general terms, I agree with you.

But consider also that Western society is tied at the roots to previous governments and cultures and societies that all had a Judeo-Christian background. So the laws we have now - many of them were descended from basic moral concepts and even 'religious laws' promulgated in ages past.

Some may well be worth discarding now - like blue laws that forbid alcohol sales on Sundays. Others, like perhaps murder - well, those laws were taken from religious laws, and even so, perhaps they should remain laws.

I agree that religion has no place in secular government - now. But I think we would have a hard time trying to disentangle the religious backgrounds of modern-day laws, morals, and practices. It's just all in the mix.

True, and while there are many laws on the books which I consider nuisances, I'll admit that I'm less concerned about restrictions that I've always lived with than I am with people trying to add new ones. I lived in Hudsonville, MI for a short time, and one of the most onerous laws (to my 13-year-old mind) was that all arcade video games had to be unplugged on Sundays. Since that was the day my mom went shopping, that law was a huge thorn in my side. But for the most part, the laws that have historical basis in religion don't bother me AS LONG AS they have a common sense rationale behind them. Murder is bad, and would be bad even if it wasn't mentioned in a holy book.

 

[Tez3]

I find that it is very easy for me as a Christian to understand that when a person professing Christianity commits a crime in the name of Christianity, it is not 'Christianity' committing the crime, it is the man himself.

I see that it is difficult for all of us, myself included, to take that same understanding and transport it to those of other religions, most notably, Islam.

When a professing Muslim commits a crime in the name of Islam, many Christians and Jews find it very easy to believe that Islam is committing the crime, that the crime was endorsed or encouraged by Muslims, that the religion and not the man is responsible for the crime.

So often, I read comments that say things like "If they (use any religion you like, but these days it is mostly Muslims) are against terrorism, why don't they stand up and say so?" Or, "Why don't they turn the terrorists in?" All one has to do it turn the argument around and use it on oneself, and the fallacy becomes clear. As a Christian, I would have a difficult time accepting the criticism "Why don't you turn in abortion doctor killers, if you're really against it?" Obviously, I don't know any abortion doctor killers. "Why don't you stand up against abortion doctor killers?" Well, I do. What demonstration would be acceptable to you?

So I can full well grasp that the typical, run-of-the-mill Muslim, especially those living in Western nations and enjoying the fruits of capitalism and hard work and success, have little in common with Muslims who want to kill me (or their fellow, less-glassy-eyed, Muslims). The don't 'turn in' their fellow Muslims who are terrorists because they don't know any. They do take a stand against terrorism, but that doesn't make any more news than when I do it.

When I've presented this argument in the past, the usual response I get from those who believe all Muslims are evil consists of "Yeah, but they ARE evil. Don't you get that?" No, actually, I don't. With 1.3 billion Muslims on the planet, I suspect if they all wanted to kill all the Christians, we'd have a lot more killing going on.

Long story short - we understand our own religion and we know what is and what is not a 'demand' of our religion, so we know our own faith does not demand terrorism or murder, and we reject those of our number who commit such crimes. We don't understand other religions (even though some of us think we do) and so we do not apply the same standards to them as we apply to ourselves.

Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.

When talking about Christians no one mentions the Quakers? (The Society of Friends) who I find as a non Christian probably the most inspiring group of people who represent Christianity in the best possible light I've ever seen and who many would be wise to follow as role models!

Sukerkin I for one have never been insulted or felt slighted when you refered to the great invisible thingummy bob in the sky, it's always made me smile.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.

My point was not about Jews, Christians, or Muslims, per se. My point was that whatever we happen to be, because we understand our own faith, we tend to understand that a person who claims our religion as a basis for their crimes is not representative of the entire group. When we look at believers in other religions who commit crimes in the name of their religion, we find it harder to accept that they do NOT represent their entire religion. Human nature, not a slam on Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

 

[elder999]

Bill you simply can't talk for Jews you know and say we find it easy to believe it's Islam as fault, perhaps out of all of us we understand that it's politics at work in the Middle East not religion.

Which is kind of the point of this thread: while he certainly "can't talk for Jews," he can say whatever he likes, as long as it's within the rules. I, for one, don't think he was "talking for Jews." He's expressed an opinion, and you've expressed a counterpoint that I largely agree with. Even then, it winds up in theological territory, though, if I were to say something like, It's all about the land-grab, colonialist Jewish-Americans and Europeans coming into Palestine and taking land away from the Palestinians. someone else will chime in with G-d gave that land to Israel, thousands of years ago-the Jews have a legitimate claim.

When talking about Christians no one mentions the Quakers? (The Society of Friends) who I find as a non Christian probably the most inspiring group of people who represent Christianity in the best possible light I've ever seen and who many would be wise to follow as role models!

My wife and her family are Quakers. Some of my forebears were Quakers. I've mentioned Quakers on other threads. They're very much a minority sect, though, and, except for the "left-wing" of Christian evangelism in this country, not many folks know much about them.

Sukerkin I for one have never been insulted or felt slighted when you refered to the great invisible thingummy bob in the sky, it's always made me smile.

Ditto. Ditto the "giant spaghetti monster," Cthulu and any other designation.

I sometimes use "foot,"as in "a giant all knowing, all-seeing foot." Anyone know what movie that's from? :lol:

 

[morph4me]

When discussing religion, we are discussing a persons belief system, something they identify with and imbues them with a sense of self. When you criticize or attack that belief, it's logical to assume that a person will feel as if he has been critcized or attacked, and when attacked they will defend their beliefs, sometimes to the point of refusing to recognize that there are other points of view. There is also a tendency to take the traits, or characteristics or actions of one person, or a minority, and assign them to an entire group, even though it's fairly obvious that even within the same place of worship there are differences in what people believe. Each persons beliefs might be considered sacrosanct to the individual, but not the religion itself.

 

[Carol]

I sometimes use "foot,"as in "a giant all knowing, all-seeing foot." Anyone know what movie that's from? :lol:

Sounds like the end of Monty Python's Flying Circus :lol2:

 

[celtic_crippler]

Let us praise God. O Lord...
Ooh, You are so big...
So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
And barefaced flattery.
But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Fantastic.
Amen.

God bless Monty Python.

 

[Tez3]

My point was not about Jews, Christians, or Muslims, per se. My point was that whatever we happen to be, because we understand our own faith, we tend to understand that a person who claims our religion as a basis for their crimes is not representative of the entire group. When we look at believers in other religions who commit crimes in the name of their religion, we find it harder to accept that they do NOT represent their entire religion. Human nature, not a slam on Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

Tbh I rarely if ever blame religion or belief for the way people behave, I look at the 'crime' if you like and the person. I don't say oh he did that because he's XXX religion. You have to look into the background of people, why they believe what they do and how that can make them behave.
Everyone has a choice of how they behave and what they believe in, i always look at the person first.

It's probably worth remember too thats there's far more religions out there than just Judaism, Christianity and Islam. there is, especially with the fall of the Iron Curtain a huge amount of Orthodox Christians out there who's beliefs are, due to historical differences, at varience with the Roman version from which Protestants also come from. When the words Judeo-Christian are used people think of the Roman church whereas they should also think of the Byzantium church.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Tbh I rarely if ever blame religion or belief for the way people behave, I look at the 'crime' if you like and the person. I don't say oh he did that because he's XXX religion. You have to look into the background of people, why they believe what they do and how that can make them behave.
Everyone has a choice of how they behave and what they believe in, i always look at the person first.

It's probably worth remember too thats there's far more religions out there than just Judaism, Christianity and Islam. there is, especially with the fall of the Iron Curtain a huge amount of Orthodox Christians out there who's beliefs are, due to historical differences, at varience with the Roman version from which Protestants also come from. When the words Judeo-Christian are used people think of the Roman church whereas they should also think of the Byzantium church.

I mentioned only the big 3 for the sake of brevity.

I am not talking about religion, or race, ethnicity, or whatever. I'm talking about human nature. When a person not of our own [race, skin color, ethnic background, religion, nation, national origin, etc] does something horrible, some of us will say "See how they are?"

If the same horrible thing happens and it is someone of our own [race, skin color, ethnic background, religion, nation, national origin, etc], we will say "That person does not represent me."

You may have overcome this - and if so, yay, you. However, most humans have not.

 

[Tez3]

Which is kind of the point of this thread: while he certainly "can't talk for Jews," he can say whatever he likes, as long as it's within the rules. I, for one, don't think he was "talking for Jews." He's expressed an opinion, and you've expressed a counterpoint that I largely agree with. Even then, it winds up in theological territory, though, if I were to say something like, It's all about the land-grab, colonialist Jewish-Americans and Europeans coming into Palestine and taking land away from the Palestinians. someone else will chime in with G-d gave that land to Israel, thousands of years ago-the Jews have a legitimate claim.

.






My wife and her family are Quakers. Some of my forebears were Quakers. I've mentioned Quakers on other threads. They're very much a minority sect, though, and, except for the "left-wing" of Christian evangelism in this country, not many folks know much about them.



Ditto. Ditto the "giant spaghetti monster," Cthulu and any other designation.

I sometimes use "foot,"as in "a giant all knowing, all-seeing foot." Anyone know what movie that's from? :lol:

Saying what one wants in a debate and speaking for others may be allowable but it's also allowed to be challenged!


Quakers are obviously a minority in the States but have had a huge influence in this country. Our local football tema ( soccer) are called the Quakers, we have many companies run by Quakers in this country, Rowntrees and Cadburys the chocolate companies probably being the best known.

http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/...rdParentNodeID=89989&int4thParentNodeID=90344

A lot of charity work was and is done by Quakers here, housing estates, prison visiting, scientific work, charities, actors and writers. etc. We've have many famous Quakers who have done a great deal for our country.Their influence in business and the conditins of the working man has been wide ranging. There's also a great many American Quakers who are well know including William Penn however this is one Quaker I think epitomises their beliefs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alexander_Sinton

I think if you have a good look you'll find they have had and continue to have a rather large influence on peoples lives. Amnesty International was founded by a Quaker. However i won't derail the thread any further.

 

[cdunn]

In general terms, I agree with you.

But consider also that Western society is tied at the roots to previous governments and cultures and societies that all had a Judeo-Christian background. So the laws we have now - many of them were descended from basic moral concepts and even 'religious laws' promulgated in ages past.

Some may well be worth discarding now - like blue laws that forbid alcohol sales on Sundays. Others, like perhaps murder - well, those laws were taken from religious laws, and even so, perhaps they should remain laws.

I agree that religion has no place in secular government - now. But I think we would have a hard time trying to disentangle the religious backgrounds of modern-day laws, morals, and practices. It's just all in the mix.

How much some of those laws are taken from the religious background are questionable. Consider, for example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest known text of law. (Predating Hammurabi by about 3 centuries.)

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

Prohibition and punishment of murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, and alimony law to boot - and they certainly did not draw upon the Abrahamic traditions. If a law creates a greater good for the society than the infringement upon the society does it ill, then is that not alone significant justification for the creation of the law? Conversely, if the infringement upon the society creates ill on the balance, is that not enough justification to abolish it?

The religious background need not play at all, and certainly must take a back seat to the over all effect that these laws have on real people, and to being in line to the powers ceeded to the government by the people.

 

[elder999]

I think if you have a good look you'll find they have had and continue to have a rather large influence on peoples lives. Amnesty International was founded by a Quaker. However i won't derail the thread any further.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker. :lol:

So was John Dillinger.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How much some of those laws are taken from the religious background are questionable. Consider, for example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest known text of law. (Predating Hammurabi by about 3 centuries.)

I did not argue that all law descends from Judeo-Christian laws. I spoke of the fact that centuries of Western governments have been ostensibly Christian, their citizens of the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that this informed the laws of those societies. They grew from the same root, and it would be impossible to pretend now that our basis for law has no religious underpinnings.

Prohibition and punishment of murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, and alimony law to boot - and they certainly did not draw upon the Abrahamic traditions. If a law creates a greater good for the society than the infringement upon the society does it ill, then is that not alone significant justification for the creation of the law? Conversely, if the infringement upon the society creates ill on the balance, is that not enough justification to abolish it?

The religious background need not play at all, and certainly must take a back seat to the over all effect that these laws have on real people, and to being in line to the powers ceeded to the government by the people.

Civilization grew up imbued with religion. Western civilization grew up imbued with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Whether a law was a 'religious' law that passed into a criminal code or whether it was sponsored and adopted by people who considered themselves Christian, the point is that Western law has a Judeo-Christian background.

I realize there were civilisations before Christianity, and that they also had laws. These may predate Christianity - but they grew straight up through the same root - adopted by Christian nations and passed on to us.

In the final analysis, one cannot say that our modern society does not have a religious underpinning. We may be secular, but our roots in the West are firmly Judeo-Christian, and our laws reflect that. For good or for ill.

 

[Tez3]

I did not argue that all law descends from Judeo-Christian laws. I spoke of the fact that centuries of Western governments have been ostensibly Christian, their citizens of the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that this informed the laws of those societies. They grew from the same root, and it would be impossible to pretend now that our basis for law has no religious underpinnings.



Civilization grew up imbued with religion. Western civilization grew up imbued with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Whether a law was a 'religious' law that passed into a criminal code or whether it was sponsored and adopted by people who considered themselves Christian, the point is that Western law has a Judeo-Christian background.

I realize there were civilisations before Christianity, and that they also had laws. These may predate Christianity - but they grew straight up through the same root - adopted by Christian nations and passed on to us.

In the final analysis, one cannot say that our modern society does not have a religious underpinning. We may be secular, but our roots in the West are firmly Judeo-Christian, and our laws reflect that. For good or for ill.

When you argue though that it's Judeo-Christian, you are meaning roman Cristainity and many of western laws actually came from Byzantine Christianity. A good look at the history of Byzantium would be rewarding for students of Christian history.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When you argue though that it's Judeo-Christian, you are meaning roman Cristainity and many of western laws actually came from Byzantine Christianity. A good look at the history of Byzantium would be rewarding for students of Christian history.

In the USA, we inherit our laws from English Common Law and our own Constitution and system of jurisprudence, which were originally developed by men of the (primarily) Christian faith. I'm sure there were other influences, our own Supreme Court building has a bas relief of some of them, including Moses and Mohammad (yes, really). Point is, our secular society isn't based purely on secular law, but derives from religious laws. Call it what you will.

 

[arnisador]

Western civilization grew up imbued with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings.[...]Western law has a Judeo-Christian background.

I realize there were civilisations before Christianity, and that they also had laws.

Much of our system has Greco-Roman origins--certainly our legal system--and these predate Christianity. Certainly, the English common law has a large Judeo-Christian influence.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Much of our system has Greco-Roman origins--certainly our legal system--and these predate Christianity. Certainly, the English common law has a large Judeo-Christian influence.

Oh good lord. I apparently am unable to communicate today. Forgive me.

One more time.

I know the origin of law systems. That's not my point, so I don't care.

My point was ONLY that Western societies such as the USA take their system of laws from their forbears, which in the West were largely religiously-based. Therefore, US law (for example) is not strictly secular but has religious roots.

I don't care if it's Judeo-Christian Q-Continuum Dance of the Blue Mongrel religion, I'm trying to point out that the basis for our system of secular laws is religious.

 

[Andrew Green]

Back to the original question...

I believe religion has to be open for debate, and not treated as sacrosanct.

When religion, and by extension religious leaders and dogma are seen as infallible we run into all sorts of very real problems. Had Pope Urban II been open to criticism the crusades might never have happened, had the extremists in the middle east been openly debating their interpretation of the Quaran we would likely have less terrorists.

Religion is a very powerful force, any powerful force it can do a lot of damage. It can be kept in check through open debate and adapting with the rest of the world.

Christianity, the religion most people here follow, was created by a guy that told everyone they had a bunch of things wrong and didn't need to keep stoning people and that bacon cheeseburgers are really rather tasty (paraphrased).

Faith is one thing, blind faith is another, much more dangerous thing.

Personally I can't understand how people can claim God gave them free-will, a conscience, the ability to think rationally, etc. Yet refuse to apply those "gifts" to what are some of the most important aspects of their belief system.

 

[Sukerkin]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "religion."

If you're talking about history and facts, well, those are worth discussing, but, where we know them, they're hardly "debatable."

Another fine and informative post, good sir.

I just wanted to clarify that what I meant by the thread title was whether Religion was 'sacroscanct' and hence not to be questioned or shown in a 'bad light' or 'debateable', wherein people were free to express their thoughts and feelings about the actions done in the name of a given faith or by the leadership of that faith.

Put more simply, in an American Constitutional frame of reference particularly, it was a question of whether Freedom of Religion meant Freedom from Criticism?

Inherent within this was the substrate of how it should be possible to ask questions of a faith and point out perceived 'problems' without being unnecessarily horrible in how you do it; without 'bashing' if you will.

The definitions of 'bashing' that Brian quoted maybe somewhat broader than the sense in which I use the term, as, to me,'bashing' is an aggressive verbal attack that has no other purpose than to belittle or demean. But the core idea for me when discussing anything is to be able to get your point across without the intent of 'injuring' those to whom you are speaking. Otherwise you just alienate the 'audience' and what you say doesn't get heard.

One thing that is certain, no matter how much we debate things on-line, I would be amazed if anyone changed their mind because of what was said in a few posts in a couple of threads. That does not mean that the discourse is worthless or even that it cannot be entertaining and educational too.

 

[elder999]

Put more simply, in an American Constitutional frame of reference particularly, it was a question of whether Freedom of Religion meant Freedom from Criticism?.

I'll answer even more simply, then: no. :lol:

To expand just a little, "Freedom of Religion" is, to me, the biggest lie of all in the Constitution.