Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a hard time casting a vote because I am a bit in favor of both selections but also against some of the things in the vote. My apologies for entering this topic a little late, by the way. I had some precious sleep to catch up on.
I'll start with the first part of the poll. Do I hope that mankind will eventually be religion free? Well, yes, to an extent. I think some of the most beautiful buildings, structures, and monuments in the world have been set up to worship one's deity. It truly is amazing what kind of temples and "houses" people will build to worship their Gods. People write songs and create artwork all in praise of their God(s). And, to me, those are some of the finer points of religion. The things that should be kept intact.
However, there is another side of religion that needs to go. The problem with religion is that "everyone" is right. No one wants to concede that they may be wrong and so even the smallest bits and pieces of doctrine become picked apart like scavenging birds fighting over the last bits of flesh. Within Christianity you have so many different "sects" with so many different views that I can only ask what would be taught about it in school. Islam, Judaism, even Hinduism and Buddhism all have their own takes on spirituality and ways of life in different forms or fashions. People take little lines and choose for themselves what it means to them and then justify it with something unfalsifiable and so the interpretation can never be challenged. The only thing resulting is war. It becomes easy to hide behind a book like Genesis and commit yourself to it regardless of the logical and rational fallacies in doing so. It becomes a nom de plume of one's own authorship and interpretation. Regardless of evidence cited to the contrary one becomes so clouded with their unfalsifiability that they fail to recognize that they could be wrong and that is why on the Christianity sub-forum there will always be bickering and fighting over doctrinal issues as well as the fight between faith and empiricism. ALWAYS.
And that is the part of religion that I wish someone could drag out in the street and shoot in the back of the head. For God's sakes, build your buildings tall, worship your deities, praise your Lord(s), and write beautiful music and paint wonderful paintings. But, the whole idea of religion is the most poisonous thing to mankind I have ever witnessed. And, by that, I mean religion in its' ulterior, unfalsifiable, many sects ways. If "religion" could ever agree to one denomination or one way of teaching it would be the best thing for this planet. But, to me, since no one would be willing to concede things that are unfalsifiable in the first place, there will always be bitter rivalry and infighting over things that one allegedly can't prove until after they die. What logical sense does that make?!
Christopher Hitchens, an ardent "anti-theist", as you all well know can be quite polarizing and probably downright offensive in the way he approaches the topic of religion. Yet, for all of his misgivings and terrible bedside manner, I find that he still makes a number of very valid points. I think that his book god is NOT great shows the aspects of religion no longer needed in society. I watched a debate between him and Al Sharpton some months ago and Al Sharpton took him to task that while the title of the book is god is NOT great the book should have been better titled religion is NOT great. In a pristinely, clean environment I actually found myself agreeing with Al Sharpton on that part of the debate but Hitchens' open candor about the indemnities and problems of religion cannot really be argued against. There is a difference between "religion" and "God" and I hope that people really and truly do understand what I am getting at in all of this. Here is the debate for those who are interested:
Now, the next question or poll topic is as such: Is anti-theism dangerous to human rights? I suppose that anything "anti" can really be considered dangerous to human rights. If we were to take the idea of a Taliban-esque destruction of all things religious up to and including the "Humanities" and cultural studies of religion than I think it becomes a grave error of incalculable proportions. Yet, I don't think that even Christopher Hitchens, for all of his condescending ways actually promotes the destruction of things such as cultural icons, statues, music, art, etc... Rather, and I am in quite an agreeance with Mr. Hitchens, the idea of God as a ruler that cares whether you saw off children's genitals, cares who you have sex with, cares what you eat, when you pray, how you pray, what sort of sexual positions you can and can't do, can be convicted of thought crime and so on and so forth is certainly not something that should be worshipped in any form or fashion. If by "anti-theist" we are to encompass the idea that a deity or his worship should revolve around these sorts of things out of fear than by all means consider me an "anti-theist". However, if we are to say that "anti-theism" is also the cultural destruction of all things having to do with religion than I would wish not to be grouped into that category. Of course, the obvious quandary and predicament is that for all of the religious icons, statues, artworks and the like that religion builds, it is usually centered around the God that I am indeed an "anti-theist" of. And, once again, that seems to become an issue of doctrine of which I do not like.
So, my only reconciliation is to say that people are going to believe in these sorts of Gods and Deities for years to come. I don't suspect that "anti-theism" or even "anti-religion" is going to destroy people's faith in their God. I watched a TV show several months ago where they went to the Russian Orthodox church in Moscow and they showed the vast number of people intensely focused on this part of spirituality. What I found was that for all of the years of Communist rule, decisive and brutal action taken against those who believe, and so on and so forth, the people still kept their faith. But, there should be one noticeable thing between the "anti-theism" of the Communists and the "anti-theism" of Hitchens. The necessary part of Communism is to abandon all faith and religion to support the Communist party. The leader becomes a demi-god, of sorts, and is the focus of all worship and attention. This, in essence, becomes the religion of the state and that is once again where the problem lies. Looking at North Korea, we see pictures and caricatures of Kim Jong Il, who is not even the "President". His dead father, Kim Il Song, is actually the leader who is praised and worshipped. If anything in this world could be seen as a true religious state than you need look no further than North Korea. And once again, the problem lies in the religious following of something based on doctrine and unfalsifiability.
In closing, while I certainly wish that "religion" in the North Korean, doctrinal, and unfalsifiable dictatorship of what is right and wrong based on human interpretation should be abandoned, I also cannot say that I wish to see people who do believe for less selfish reasons have their faith destroyed and conquered. It is indeed part of what makes up the "Human Element" of things and should be studied and compared in schools. I hope I made my point clear that there is a distinguishable difference and I certainly hope that no one takes my words the wrong way. Alas, I can only feel that some will... and that is part of the problem.
I can't vote. The choices are too extreme. Religion is fine if it brings people comfort and fills their hearts with kindness and peace. It's just not for me, because I can't make myself believe the things religion tells me to believe. Yes, lots of people abuse religion and use it to judge others, but religion itself is not inherently bad -- it's how people relate to it that's good or bad.
And that is the part of religion that I wish someone could drag out in the street and shoot in the back of the head. For God's sakes, build your buildings tall, worship your deities, praise your Lord(s), and write beautiful music and paint wonderful paintings. But, the whole idea of religion is the most poisonous thing to mankind I have ever witnessed. And, by that, I mean religion in its' ulterior, unfalsifiable, many sects ways. If "religion" could ever agree to one denomination or one way of teaching it would be the best thing for this planet. But, to me, since no one would be willing to concede things that are unfalsifiable in the first place, there will always be bitter rivalry and infighting over things that one allegedly can't prove until after they die. What logical sense does that make?!
I understand your points.. But my bolded point above can never happen, and I think you'll agree. "Religion" is based on right and wrong, black and white, and so anything that would combine all religions would lack these points and become gray. It would simply be a sham. Now of course I believe that there can only be one truth.. but by saying this I don't mean that everyone who is not seeing the complete truth as I see it is evil. I don't see the complete truth either. I think there is entirely too much judging of "people" done by Christians, when really that is not our place.. but we can judge what is right and wrong, just leave out the condemnation of the people themselves. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but I'm going off topic anyway.
Quote:
Yet, I don't think that even Christopher Hitchens, for all of his condescending ways actually promotes the destruction of things such as cultural icons, statues, music, art, etc...
Directly, no. No one would directly come out and do this.
Quote:
Rather, and I am in quite an agreeance with Mr. Hitchens, the idea of God as a ruler that cares whether you saw off children's genitals, cares who you have sex with, cares what you eat, when you pray, how you pray, what sort of sexual positions you can and can't do, can be convicted of thought crime and so on and so forth is certainly not something that should be worshipped in any form or fashion. If by "anti-theist" we are to encompass the idea that a deity or his worship should revolve around these sorts of things out of fear than by all means consider me an "anti-theist".
I agree that a cult-like, controlling fear of God and judgment is not right, and is harmful, but who makes the call when a god should not be worshipped? This is dangerous ground... and this thinking could, or rather is starting to have far-reaching consequences. If it remains a personal opinion, fine.. but it cannot forever.
Quote:
However, if we are to say that "anti-theism" is also the cultural destruction of all things having to do with religion than I would wish not to be grouped into that category. Of course, the obvious quandary and predicament is that for all of the religious icons, statues, artworks and the like that religion builds, it is usually centered around the God that I am indeed an "anti-theist" of.
I have no use for cultural religious icons, statues, etc. IMO these things will never be destroyed.. that will never be the issue. In fact, by letting these "useless" items survive, a country would give the illusion that "religion" is not being destroyed.
Quote:
So, my only reconciliation is to say that people are going to believe in these sorts of Gods and Deities for years to come. I don't suspect that "anti-theism" or even "anti-religion" is going to destroy people's faith in their God. I watched a TV show several months ago where they went to the Russian Orthodox church in Moscow and they showed the vast number of people intensely focused on this part of spirituality. What I found was that for all of the years of Communist rule, decisive and brutal action taken against those who believe, and so on and so forth, the people still kept their faith.
I agree.. "religion" will never be destroyed. I'm not worried about that at all. But what causes me concern at times is the feeling I get that my religious freedom and practice will definitely be hampered. It may be a decade or two, I don't know, but it's going that way. And I'm not saying this is good or bad.. just a natural part of society's downward trend. But it's going to be harder for my children and grandchildren. Will my children have the same privilege I have, to send their children to a Christian school which does not teach evolution, and at home and at church teach them to love God and fear sin and the devil? You might say "of course! Freedom of religion is what our country is based on, and it will never be destroyed. There would be a public outcry." But what is more important in your mind.. human (esp. children's) rights or religious freedom?
Quote:
But, there should be one noticeable thing between the "anti-theism" of the Communists and the "anti-theism" of Hitchens. The necessary part of Communism is to abandon all faith and religion to support the Communist party. The leader becomes a demi-god, of sorts, and is the focus of all worship and attention. This, in essence, becomes the religion of the state and that is once again where the problem lies.
There is a difference on the surface, yes, but only there. All other aspects are the same. Just exchange the words Kim Jong with "human rights".. and I say those words with quotes around them for a reason.
Quote:
In closing, while I certainly wish that "religion" in the North Korean, doctrinal, and unfalsifiable dictatorship of what is right and wrong based on human interpretation should be abandoned, I also cannot say that I wish to see people who do believe for less selfish reasons have their faith destroyed and conquered. It is indeed part of what makes up the "Human Element" of things and should be studied and compared in schools. I hope I made my point clear that there is a distinguishable difference and I certainly hope that no one takes my words the wrong way. Alas, I can only feel that some will... and that is part of the problem.
I understand your points.. But my bolded point above can never happen, and I think you'll agree. "Religion" is based on right and wrong, black and white, and so anything that would combine all religions would lack these points and become gray. It would simply be a sham. Now of course I believe that there can only be one truth.. but by saying this I don't mean that everyone who is not seeing the complete truth as I see it is evil. I don't see the complete truth either. I think there is entirely too much judging of "people" done by Christians, when really that is not our place.. but we can judge what is right and wrong, just leave out the condemnation of the people themselves. Maybe this doesn't make sense to you, but I'm going off topic anyway.
My point was exactly that and I didn't think I needed to really say it. The very fact that religion or faith is based on that which is unfalsifiable becomes the very downfall and root of problems within religion. The only reconciliation that I see in order for people to keep a faith in God without fighting is to have everyone agree on what they believe. I'm not stupid enough to think that this is a possibility. The fact is, however, that not even people of the same faith (Christian, Muslim, etc...) can all agree on what it is they believe or how they interpret their respective scriptures. If it weren't so sad it'd be comical to watch them literally bicker and fight over ridiculously petty things in regards to how one believes; all because no one can ultimately prove their point until they die. And, sometimes, people are willing to do it just to prove their point. That's the bad part!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
Directly, no. No one would directly come out and do this.
Then why do it indirectly? Do you really think there is a grand Atheist conspiracy to sever the limbs of the religious with subversive tactics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
I agree that a cult-like, controlling fear of God and judgment is not right, and is harmful, but who makes the call when a god should not be worshipped? This is dangerous ground... and this thinking could, or rather is starting to have far-reaching consequences. If it remains a personal opinion, fine.. but it cannot forever.
Who makes the call when a god should not be worshipped? Well, who makes the call when a god should be worshipped?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
I have no use for cultural religious icons, statues, etc. IMO these things will never be destroyed.. that will never be the issue. In fact, by letting these "useless" items survive, a country would give the illusion that "religion" is not being destroyed.
I'm failing to see the point in this, cg81. Do you mean that by allowing all the great artworks, musical pieces, churches, houses of worship, allowing people to attend their ceremonies and practice their faith (any faith) is just giving the illusion that religion is not being destroyed? I just don't follow that logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
I agree.. "religion" will never be destroyed. I'm not worried about that at all. But what causes me concern at times is the feeling I get that my religious freedom and practice will definitely be hampered. It may be a decade or two, I don't know, but it's going that way. And I'm not saying this is good or bad.. just a natural part of society's downward trend. But it's going to be harder for my children and grandchildren. Will my children have the same privilege I have, to send their children to a Christian school which does not teach evolution, and at home and at church teach them to love God and fear sin and the devil? You might say "of course! Freedom of religion is what our country is based on, and it will never be destroyed. There would be a public outcry." But what is more important in your mind.. human (esp. children's) rights or religious freedom?
Part of human rights is religious freedom, cg81! And I have just as much invested in the "religious freedom" portion as you do with the exception that I don't have kids. Without religious freedom then it also becomes possible for radical religious groups to take over and kill people like... well... me. So, I highly doubt that there are going to be armies of Christian exterminators looking for a reason to destroy the way you raise your children. What we DO want is for our governments not to show support for particular religions and if that means taking directed prayer out of school than so be it; and if that means nixxing ID/Creationism from the science program because it's not science than so be it. But, I hardly find that to be squashing anyone's religious freedom or how they raise their children.
Besides, I find absence of faith to be an "upward trend" in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
There is a difference on the surface, yes, but only there. All other aspects are the same. Just exchange the words Kim Jong with "human rights".. and I say those words with quotes around them for a reason.
How do you equate human rights to Kim Jong Il?? Perhaps I misunderstand?
Do you really think there is a grand Atheist conspiracy to sever the limbs of the religious with subversive tactics?
I don't want to appear like someone who is paranoid and chasing the next conspiracy theory, but to answer your question, no, I don't believe there is a vast carefully-planned conspiracy of atheists against Christians. Not at all.
What I am seeing though is that the human rights movement, especially relating to children, is definitely taking precedence over freedom of choice. Now I believe that children have certain rights to a happy, healthy, well-adjusted life. Just the latest example of a law to be passed in some of the provinces here in Canada is "No smoking in a vehicle if it contains a child under 16." Of course, this has nothing to do with religion... but the implications of such thinking can only take away freedom. You mentioned in your post that you believe that a god with certain fearful attributes should not be worshipped.. what if I am brainwashing my child to believe in such a God? Others in this thread have stressed a child's right to mainstream education.. what if I wish to shelter my child from humanistic and evolutionary teaching? As I think I mentioned in this thread, there are hundreds of "conservative" families moving to our area every year because of laws relating to this in Europe (fines, imprisonment or other legal action agains parents who refuse to teach their children anti-biblical curriculum). But notice that this would never be admitted as falling under the heading of "religious persecution".. rather, children's rights would be stressed and take precedence over any religious beliefs.
Laws like this may be years away from happening here in NA, but the mindset and groundwork for "end justifies the means" processes is already here. It may seem far-fetched, but read over the points I quoted from Bellinghamite in this post to catch a glimpse of what I mean: http://www.city-data.com/forum/4137167-post16.html
What I am seeing though is that the human rights movement, especially relating to children, is definitely taking precedence over freedom of choice.
I'm not so sure it's human rights that are infringing upon your freedoms as it is state's interests. We have a public school system because it is in the state's interest to have citizens who have attained certain minimal levels of education. Clearly, a literate population functions better in a world of written communications. Basic math skills and rudimentary knowledge of science are necessary for effective performance in many jobs. Standardizing the curriculum allows the government to evaluate how well the population is acquiring those basic skill sets.
While local school boards wield tremendous influence over schools' textbooks and subject matter, they must make their choices within the parameters defined by the government in recognition of the government interest of making education as standard and widespread as possible.
If someone decided to have a wizards' school, or a school for toesuckers or what have you, they can teach according to their interests as long as they meet the state-determined criteria. It's not about restricting people who have made certain lifestyle choices, it's about the state ensuring that the population it serves has the ability to be part of a productive and growing economy.
I'm not so sure it's human rights that are infringing upon your freedoms as it is state's interests. We have a public school system because it is in the state's interest to have citizens who have attained certain minimal levels of education. Clearly, a literate population functions better in a world of written communications. Basic math skills and rudimentary knowledge of science are necessary for effective performance in many jobs. Standardizing the curriculum allows the government to evaluate how well the population is acquiring those basic skill sets.
I agree with your points that it is good to have certain minimum standards set as far as level of education. Standardized testing on math, reading and a certain knowledge of science and geography etc is a good thing to make sure that proper education is being received to enable our children to become productive citizens.
But when it goes beyond a common-sense approach, that is where my question lies. For example, I don't mean this to boast, but in the private school system I went to and intend on sending my children to, we consistantly score higher than average on standardized testing.. but we do not teach evolution, and our science would teach Creation when it comes to the origin of life. So what would be the need of forcing a school like mine to teach evolution? The excuse of equipping our children to make a go of it in the modern world is pretty lame.. the business field is wide open to those who want to work, and most jobs would not require a knowledge of evolutionary theory. Going to school in a disciplined (but not overbearing) environment and learning the basic skills, and how to learn and apply yourself goes a long ways.
I'm probably not explaining my viewpoint very well because really, I have no problem with your instruction of your children in regards to their religious beliefs. The standardization of public education serves the public in both an economic way and in a social way. By making curriculum in history courses or biology courses or English courses relatively standard you provide a basis for communication. People in Massachusetts and people in California have basic information and worldviews that are similar enough that they can overcome regional and cultural differences and work together effectively. As a parent you can supervise and influence your children's education so that they will adopt your beliefs in Creationism and understand your qualms about evolutionary theory. The state isn't trying to interfere with your parental rights. But the Empiric method in science is fundamental to an understanding of how science works. Evolutionary theory isn't just an American whim, most people in industrialized nations in the world currently favor this theory over Creationism. American public education includes evolution theory at some point in most science curricula. It's not the only theory that's taught, it's just one chapter in a biology book, one week out of the 150 weeks a high school student attends. Even if you and your children don't subscribe to the theory, does it hurt your child to learn about a theory that many of the people he meets in the future, both in the workplace and socially, do subscribe to?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
