TRYUSINGLOGIC

Articles Posted: 62 Links Seeded: 9

Member Since: 4/2009 Last Seen: 4/30/2012

Do religions understand their biggest dilemma?

Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:50 PM EST

church, state, america, religion, government, reality, freedom, liberty, enslavement

By TryUsingLogic

Advertise | AdChoices

Democracies like ours offer freedom of belief to their citizens. Left wing Dictatorships promote the denial of gods and the idolization of earthly "Dictator Gods," and to maintain that power they enslave, starve and kill their followers. Theocracies defend their chosen God and use their powers to belittle, threaten and enslave those who do not believe as they do.

The beauty of America is our forefathers established a foundation to protect freedom of belief and not endorse any religion within the government.

It amazes me that the diverse selection of religions in America cannot understand the importance of separation of church and state. All religions have the underlying theme that the world would be better if their scriptures and dogma dominated everyone's life and controlled the law of the land.

As a non-believer I always stand firm for the rights of all of us to believe what we choose. I never demonstrate or protest to remove the rights of anyone's choice to believe. I feel that true freedom to believe is the only path to educating and enlightening those who have open minds. It is a slow path but the absolute freedom to believe without government interference is the only path to the liberation of mankind from fictitious gods. And I think religions are, down deep, terrified by that freedom!

When religions deny separation of church and state, they endanger their freedom and survival!

I believe that to much government control, or too much religion is dangerous.

What do newsvine readers think?

TryUsingLogic

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

TryUsingLogic's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: Albuquerque/Santa Fe

Public Discussion (71)

TryUsingLogic

I have heard Evangelicals say the Bible should come first....before our constitution!

Wow!

7 votes

#1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:56 PM EST

IslamicScholars

If it offers a higher moral code then available in the constitution then yes. If no then No

2 votes

#1.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:18 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

As to the Bible....

If it offers a higher moral code then available in the constitution then yes. If no then No

Is sending all non-believers to Hell a higher moral code?

7 votes

#1.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:30 PM EST

King Dave

It's one of the worst mind forged manacles, that we can't criticise or discuss religion. Some countries we can't. I do think about morality questions a lot. For me it definitely does not require Gods or religion to ponder the question. Humans are just smart enough to realize there is strength in numbers, and co-operation makes survival easier. Would we rather live with solipsistic killers or like-minded happy people?..We can throw a God in the mix, but it does not make the picture any clearer.

5 votes

#1.3 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:21 PM EST

Walt42

TryUsingLogic...What is it called 'Occam's Razor'??

When you strongly state:

When religions deny separation of church and state, they endanger their freedom and survival!

But recognize that:

It amazes me that the diverse selection of religions in America cannot understand the importance of separation of church and state.

And:

All religions have the underlying theme that the world would be better if their scriptures and dogma dominated everyone's life and controlled the law of the land.

Are mutually exclusive !!

IMHO, the world religions are on a crash intercept course. AND, although they all attempt to teach respect and love for all, they somehow always produce leadership which pushes THEIR theology, to the point of excluding all others. Sometimes, as we now see along the Persian Gulf, there are many of the faithful willing to commit heinous acts to either show their contempt for others or their love of their God, I can not be sure which. It is for that reason that I would like to see all organized religions disbanded (for the good of mankind). If someone gains great value from their faith, that is good; but do they really need a church to pray???

2 votes

#1.4 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:31 PM EST

IslamicScholars

Only God can case anyone to hell fire. Human beings have no power over that. The messengers sent taught how to be good and what is bad.

Giving = Good

Stealing = Bad.

Some extremist take religion so literal that they take it upon themselves to attack others ( regardless of their belief-some can be from the same belief ).

1 vote

#1.5 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:58 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

Does that mean Islam can present the idea that the Koran should come before our Constitution?

4 votes

#2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:58 PM EST

IslamicScholars

If it offers a higher moral code then available in the constitution then yes. If no then No

2 votes

#2.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:18 PM EST

Grisham

Who decides what is a 'higher moral code'? I don't think you need religion to be civilized and to construct laws that benefit the majority.

7 votes

#2.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:27 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

As to Islam....

If it offers a higher moral code then available in the constitution then yes. If no then No

Is destruction of all Infidels a higher moral code? That doesn't sound at all like freedom of religion!

6 votes

#2.3 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:28 PM EST

oldecrankyman

Who decides what is a 'higher moral code'?

Well, the leaders of whatever religion of course............and therein lies the whole problem.

6 votes

#2.4 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:29 PM EST

Clint-746036

If religions were all about achieving a higher moral code and didn't insist others adopt theirs, religion would be a good thing.

5 votes

#2.5 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:39 PM EST

IslamicScholars

hurting someone unjustly is wrong regardless who does it.

Highest moral code.

Extremist who push their own understanding to being the true understanding in faith is of low moral code.

God gave all people freedoms and from them is freedom to belief and those who follow religion must realize this religious fact.

Killing unjustly will never be justified, oppression and force are not justified by God. God can easily do such things to anyone, but no. They have choices to make, no one is supposed to interfere with their choices. It's like locking up someone in a cell, by force for no wrong doing and say "this is better for you"

Forcing religion will never work and people don't like being forced to do anything.

1 vote

#2.6 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:01 PM EST

IslamicScholars

The beauty of America is our forefathers established a foundation to protect freedom of belief and not endorse any religion within the government.

I agree and should hold firm to those beliefs as well.

Religion and none religious are both humans and both can be manipulated one way or another.

4 votes

#3 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:17 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

I agree and should hold firm to those beliefs as well.

Religion and none religious are both humans and both can be manipulated one way or another.

So will you agree that Theocracy of Islam is destroying the Middle East?

6 votes

#3.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:37 PM EST

mrsrachelm

I'd be interested to hear that answer as well.

2 votes

#3.2 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:37 AM EST

IslamicScholars

nope that is a new ideology or terms used today

People ignore the significant part the invading Europeans have played into destroying the middle east.

They kinda destroyed the whole world turning it to colonies and settlements.

Why do people ignore this ?

Why do people not acknowledge that under Islam for 1400 years most of the people lived in relative peace and harmony?

Why do people ignore what happened in the early days?

Islam is contributing to the destruction of theocracy in the middle east. The only cracy that exists among muslim leaders today is corruptionracy.

These ideas came with the Europeans as well.

1 vote

#3.3 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:05 PM EST

IslamicScholars

Logic teaches me that for 1400 years these people did not see each other as enemies to live as neighbors, but a change happened to their thinking pattern and it was brought by the European elitist.

1 vote

#3.4 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:08 PM EST

MattInTX

Why do people not acknowledge that under Islam for 1400 years most of the people lived in relative peace and harmony?

I'm sorry, but that depends on your definition of peace and harmony. You can not be in a state of war and still not be at peace.

#3.5 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:14 PM EST

oldecrankyman

Why do people not acknowledge that under Islam for 1400 years most of the people lived in relative peace and harmony?

Probably because almost nothing could be further from the truth.

You're apparently unaware that your comments are proving the premise of this seed.

#3.6 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:58 PM EST

Grisham

I agree with you whole-heartedly, LOGIC. Religion has no place in politics in my opinion. We've seen enough examples in the past and even in the current news about how religion mixed with politics equals disaster. I also think if you want to protect the freedom to believe what you want, you can't endorse one religion over another. If one religion is given the power to inject their beliefs into the political scheme, you're endorsing (as a nation) that religion over all the rest, which is a slippery slope.

Good article and thanks for the read.

4 votes

#4 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:25 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

Grisham....

Thanks for the input......

TUL

1 vote

#4.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:33 PM EST

oldecrankyman

If one gives in to the irrationality that is religion, then it makes perfect sense to have it rule everything. The essential problem I see with religion is that it requires turning off logic. Once one does that, pretty much anything becomes believable.

3 votes

#5 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:27 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

If one gives in to the irrationality that is religion, then it makes perfect sense to have it rule everything. The essential problem I see with religion is that it requires turning off logic. Once one does that, pretty much anything becomes believable.

Very good thought!

Thanks for joining in!

TUL

4 votes

#5.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:35 PM EST

Mister Joshua

If one gives in to the irrationality that is religion, then it makes perfect sense to have it rule everything.

Not really, Jesus told his followers to store up their treasure in heaven, not on Earth where everything is temporary and will inevitably come to ruin. So you can see how the Bible does not condone theocracy, although given the persecution of the early church by pagan authorities, one can see how the Catholic Church developed the way it did.

1 vote

#5.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:04 PM EST

IndependentVoter

that it requires turning off logic

No it does not.

3 votes

#5.3 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:06 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

Not really, Jesus told his followers to store up their treasure in heaven, not on Earth where everything is temporary and will inevitably come to ruin

You talk as if the Bible is Godly the same as Islam claims for the Quran....

Nothing about that is based on fact......just faith.....

Do you admit that God, Allah and heaven may not exist?

2 votes

#5.4 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:13 PM EST

oldecrankyman

that it requires turning off logic

No it does not.

Independent Voter, so you think that it's logical to believe in a supposedly all knowing being that apparently didn't know that the world extended past the Middle East?

#5.5 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:52 PM EST

Mister Joshua

Do you admit that God, Allah and heaven may not exist?

I faith that He does exist and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all. That is enough. But I suppose logically I must concede that your question is a possiblity as you must also concede that my belief is also possible as well.

1 vote

#5.6 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:52 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

I faith that He does exist and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all. That is enough. But I suppose logically I must concede that your question is a possiblity as you must also concede that my belief is also possible as well.

I always say I could be wrong....but I am favored greatly by fact and evidence! "Faith" is not a strong argument!

2 votes

#5.7 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:59 PM EST

oldecrankyman

One could wonder why such a god chooses to not reveal itself in the day of instant communication. It would only seem logical that if such a being existed, it would take the opportunity to do so.

#5.8 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:18 PM EST

IndependentVoter

all knowing being that apparently didn't know that the world extended past the Middle East?

Complete nonsensical presumption.

2 votes

#5.9 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:49 PM EST

Clint-746036

One could wonder why such a god chooses to not reveal itself in the day of instant communication. It would only seem logical that if such a being existed, it would take the opportunity to do so.

God isn't revealed today? Where are you looking? God is revealed today as in all of time. God communicates to us as we were created to communicate...less that 10% verbal and greater than 90% nonverbal. Look around and you will see, hear, feel and experience God.

2 votes

#5.10 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:50 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

God isn't revealed today? Where are you looking? God is revealed today as in all of time. God communicates to us as we were created to communicate...less that 10% verbal and greater than 90% nonverbal. Look around and you will see, hear, feel and experience God.

If an all powerful God could be 90% verbal and 10% nonverbal.......maybe no one would question IT?

#5.11 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:59 PM EST

oldecrankyman

God isn't revealed today? Where are you looking? God is revealed today as in all of time. God communicates to us as we were created to communicate...less that 10% verbal and greater than 90% nonverbal. Look around and you will see, hear, feel and experience God.

No, god isn't revealed today. It would seem fairly easy for a supreme being to part the Red Sea on video, yes?

2 votes

#5.12 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:00 PM EST

Clint-746036

Why would an all powerful God choose your method of communication? God would expect you to learn God's method.

1 vote

#5.13 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:02 PM EST

Mister Joshua

One could wonder why such a god chooses to not reveal itself in the day of instant communication. It would only seem logical that if such a being existed, it would take the opportunity to do so.

God is sovereign, what He decides is totally up to Him, but He kind of already has with Jesus. If you believe in that you believe that God has revealed Himself to us.

1 vote

#5.14 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:13 AM EST

Janeinthisworld

that it requires turning off logic

No it does not.

I does indeed require turning off logic. But in the absence of logic, many will turn to rationale, a sort of fake logic to prop up their arguments.

God communicates to us as we were created to communicate...less that 10% verbal and greater than 90% nonverbal. Look around and you will see, hear, feel and experience God.

See. I prove my point.

#5.15 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:04 AM EST

Clint-746036

See. I prove my point.

How is your point proved? Declaring it so doesn't make it so.

#5.16 - Sat Jan 22, 2011 12:19 AM EST

Free Rino

There are no two words that leave me as cold as "christian nation"

Those people really peas me off

2 votes

#6 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:44 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

There are no two words that leave me as cold as "christian nation"

Those people really peas me off

We are a free nation that Christians or some other religion would like to dominate!

I'm with you.......and I think Jefferson would be with us......

1 vote

#6.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:13 PM EST

BlackRock Steve

.......and I think Jefferson would be with us......

He is,TUL...Jefferson was a consistent critic of Christianity and viewed it as a major threat to the future survival of America; he was adamant in his advocacy for separation of church and state. His writings have frequently been cited by the Supreme Court when deciding church/state separation cases. In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote this about Christianity: "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Great article and questions, TUL! One of the most disturbing issues for me in the last couple years is the segment of our population that actively advocates their "Christian Nation Myth" that is based upon their revisionism of who our founding fathers were and their intent for freedom of religion, including that of non-believers. They were Deists, not Christians!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

"The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics. They crafted a constitutional order that intended to make a person's religious convictions, or his lack of religious convictions, irrelevant in judging the value of his political opinion or in assessing his qualifications to hold political office." Cornell University Scholars Isaac Kramnick & R. Laurence Moore: p.23, The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (W.W. Norton, 1996)

Peace, BRS

1 vote

#6.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:16 PM EST

Grisham

Mister Joshua

So you can see how the Bible does not condone theocracy, although given the persecution of the early church by pagan authorities, one can see how the Catholic Church developed the way it did.

I don't think the Church became the way it is today because of persecution. After all, the Church itself has done its fair share of persecuting. I think it has become what it has become because it is run by men. Power and greed pervade the Church and so it is corrupt, like most man-made institutions. The difference is that they prey on people who have faith and so many of those people don't question what they are being told by the Church because to do so would be heresy.

oldecrankyman

One could wonder why such a god chooses to not reveal itself in the day of instant communication. It would only seem logical that if such a being existed, it would take the opportunity to do so.

If there were a God, I doubt we would be able to fathom his reasons for doing anything. The other thing being that if he were to miraculously appear and make his will known, you could kiss goodbye to free will - who would bother to think for themselves, evolve or do much of anything if God were around to tell us what to do?

#7 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:32 PM EST

oldecrankyman

If there were a God, I doubt we would be able to fathom his reasons for doing anything. The other thing being that if he were to miraculously appear and make his will known, you could kiss goodbye to free will - who would bother to think for themselves, evolve or do much of anything if God were around to tell us what to do?

Thanks for supporting my comment regarding irrationality.

#7.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:04 PM EST

Grisham

Ha Ha. You're welcome. I do what I can, where I can. :)

#7.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:09 PM EST

The Gunshark

If there were a God, I doubt we would be able to fathom his reasons for doing anything. The other thing being that if he were to miraculously appear and make his will known, you could kiss goodbye to free will - who would bother to think for themselves, evolve or do much of anything if God were around to tell us what to do?

I am assuming that this God would be all-powerful and all-knowing. In which case, free will does not exist anyway.

#7.3 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:04 PM EST

IndependentVoter

if God were around to tell us what to do?

He is..just ask.

1 vote

#8 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:52 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

He is..just ask.

Are you serious.....or delusional?

#8.1 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:00 PM EST

oldecrankyman

Probably both, unfortunately.

#8.2 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:09 PM EST

Uthaclena

There is a real difference between "spirituality" and "religion;" religion decrees how spiritual impressions should be interpreted, practiced, and promoted vis a vis others. Religion may bring about some small comfort to the choir to which it preaches, but rarely provides any truly universal solidarity. Religion is more often a source of conflict than it is of unity, and should have NO role in determining the rules by which diverse people should live together without being tempted to kill each other in their Deity's Name.

#9 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:29 PM EST

Hiram-1381633

The original idea of separation of church and state was not to keep the church from any influence in government, but to keep the government our of church. This is very well seen in the letter sent to Jefferson by Danbury Church.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere. 

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ. 

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people. 

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator. 

Signed in behalf of the association,  Nehemiah Dodge

                                      Ephraim Robbins

                                      Stephen S. Nelson

One of the greatest attributes of Christianity is freedom. For without freedom there would be no Christianity, there would be no Christ, there would be no salvation. Without freedom there would be no love. If you do not understand this then you do not understand what it means to be a Christian.

1 vote

#10 - Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:56 PM EST

Janeinthisworld

I'm afraid there are many Christians who don't understand what it means to be a Christian. Why would any of the rest of us do any better?

#10.1 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:08 AM EST

Hiram-1381633

Jane -

You are correct in your first evaluation. That however does not mean we cannot do better. I pray everyday for the power of the Holy Spirit to guide me and help me. We cannot do it on our own as we are a sinful creature at heart. It is only through the power of God that we can even hope to overcome.

#10.2 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:54 AM EST

TryUsingLogic

One of the greatest attributes of Christianity is freedom. For without freedom there would be no Christianity, there would be no Christ, there would be no salvation. Without freedom there would be no love. If you do not understand this then you do not understand what it means to be a Christian.

America was founded on freedom, not Christianity. If Christians respected freedom, they would not use their money and power to undermine the beliefs of others by pushing their dogma into laws. I know where the churches are and can go to one if I want, and that is a precious freedom. But when many Evangelical leaders say the Bible should come first, and our Constitution second, it should concern all freedom loving people.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
Thomas Jefferson

2 votes

#10.3 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:51 AM EST

Hiram-1381633

they would not use their money and power to undermine the beliefs of others by pushing their dogma into laws.

So using your same logic no group should be allowed to use their money or power to influence the formation of laws. This is an absurd concept, by the very nature of freedom we are all give the right to stand up for what we believe to be moral and ethical;we are all allowed to vote our conscience and help establish the moral, ethical an economical direction this country is to take. To exclude any group from doing so is an unmentionable infringement upon the very concept of freedom.

1 vote

#10.4 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:12 AM EST

The Gunshark

One of the greatest attributes of Christianity is freedom. For without freedom there would be no Christianity, there would be no Christ, there would be no salvation. Without freedom there would be no love. If you do not understand this then you do not understand what it means to be a Christian.

How?

How is Christianity even based on freedom when the main doctrine is to serve God or burn in hell? It's like an abused wife getting a gun held to her head and the husband saying, "I love you so much, but if you don't love me back and do everything I say (and I know in advance whether or not you will), I will lock you in the basement and torture you."

1 vote

#10.5 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:09 PM EST

Hiram-1381633

With freedom comes responsibility. How is there real freedom if I stealI get punished, if I kill I will be killed, if I lie I reap the consequences? Freedom does not mean that there will never be consequences for our actions. It means that we have a choice to either face the consequences of our wrong choices or reap the benefits of our right choices.

#10.6 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:58 PM EST

The Gunshark

How is there real freedom if I stealI get punished, if I kill I will be killed, if I lie I reap the consequences? Freedom does not mean that there will never be consequences for our actions. It means that we have a choice to either face the consequences of our wrong choices or reap the benefits of our right choices.

*facepalm*

You know the court charge of being an accessory or conspirator? That applies here.

If you knew about a murder and did nothing to stop it or call it in, you would likely be charged with being an accessory or co-conspirator in that murder. It's the same thing with God.

He knew the consequences and inflicted the suffering anyway.

Oh, and by the way, we at least let the punishment fit the crime in our justice system. Eternal punishment for finite crimes is the definition of cosmic tyranny, especially when you could easily point out that the judge himself is involved... and no one would even question because they are enslaved to their God. So it's off to hell with you.

#10.7 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:54 PM EST

Hiram-1381633

He knew the consequences and inflicted the suffering anyway.

We know the consequences and yet still choose to sin. You are caught up in the victim mentality today's corrupt world. It is not my fault therefore I do not have to assume the responsibility. We blame everyone and everything but ourselves, we lack the character to assume the consequences for our actions.

#10.8 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:02 PM EST

The Gunshark

It is not my fault therefore I do not have to assume the responsibility. We blame everyone and everything but ourselves, we lack the character to assume the consequences for our actions.

Actually, I assume responsibility for my actions because I don't believe that this God exists.

If this God exists, then there is no real free will.

If it does not, then there is free choice and consequence.

2 votes

#10.9 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:38 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

So using your same logic no group should be allowed to use their money or power to influence the formation of laws. This is an absurd concept, by the very nature of freedom we are all give the right to stand up for what we believe to be moral and ethical;we are all allowed to vote our conscience and help establish the moral, ethical an economical direction this country is to take. To exclude any group from doing so is an unmentionable infringement upon the very concept of freedom.

There is a big difference ... constructing laws and societies based on real world events is different than basing our lives on supernatural gods and myths. Freedom is not protected if I demand laws to prevent religion, or if religions demand laws to validate chosen gods. As a non-believer I can only hope that you would agree that if government endorses any religious dogma not embraced by other beliefs, freedom suffers. If all religions accepted the same dogma, we would really suffer, and live in a Theocracy. Do you suggest that theocracies are free!

The problem is that governing is real world, and religions are hopeful fantasies!

If you don't see the difference, you can't know the difference.

Even our mixed religious forefathers clearly understood the need for separation of church and state, even though you don't seem too!

You seem to believe if the majority votes for oppression.....that's freedom!

I don't think so!

1 vote

#10.10 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:09 PM EST

oldecrankyman

There is a big difference ... constructing laws and societies based on real world events is different than basing our lives on supernatural gods and myths

Exactly so, and well said.

2 votes

#10.11 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:01 PM EST

Enoch-2699399

Not all religions teach that everyone needs to follow them. Not all religions believe that something terrible will happen to those who do not follow theirs.

This article makes a good point about those religions who want to misuse government for their own private agendas, and who want to enslave others to push their point of view. That some do doesn't mean all do. The author here is painting with too broad a brush.

To further muddy the waters, even in the case of those religions who have doctrines favoring belief in hell, and evangelism, not everyone in those heritages believe in it, and/or practice it.

There are at least more than one hundred thousand non-Jewish religions being practiced across the planet at this moment. Many do none of these things. Not all of them think salvation is limited solely to their followers.

It is best not to over generalize for all in a category, based on some negative experiences one has had with some in that category. It only hurts the credibility of the argument against those who are infringing on the rights of others based on their beliefs, when such wholesale condemnation is applied across the board. It is better to focus specifically on what an author does know to be the case. Otherwise, their point is lost in a tsunami sized wave of legitimate counter examples.

It is also morally wrong and indefensible to project onto some the sins of others. How does that make the position being espoused here ethically justifyable?

As they say in medicine, "First do no harm".

G-d bless, Enoch.

2 votes

#11 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:19 AM EST

oldecrankyman

There are at least more than one hundred thousand non-Jewish religions being practiced across the planet at this moment.

Well there's an interesting comment. First, how come judaism is the only one mentioned? Second, more than 100,000 religions? I'll be very interested in seeing you provide some backup for that blooper.

#11.1 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:05 PM EST

Enoch-2699399

I am proudly Orthodox Jewish. That is the main reason why I draw the distinction between Judaism and the non-Jewish religions. Also, because most of what is posed as problematic in this seed doesn't exist in my heritage. The figure for numbers of religions being followed about the globe is not a blooper. It is accurate. Not all the religions practiced formal, get press coverage, and have large followings. Many are tribal, rural, and small devotees. Hence, my point that trying to project onto all religions the problems some find with those with which they are familiar doesn't make an otherwise worthy of consideration point. It tends to undercut the credibility of the individual trying to make it. That is what happens when one paints with too broad a brush, or makes pejorative comments based on a lack of information. G-d bless. Enoch.

1 vote

#11.2 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:16 PM EST

TryUsingLogic

The figure for numbers of religions being followed about the globe is not a blooper. It is accurate. Not all the religions practiced formal, get press coverage, and have large followings. Many are tribal, rural, and small devotees.

Just looking around the internet......your numbers don't hold up.

I can find countless references to there being 10,000 religions created by man.......

and.....

Number of adherents of world religions:

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." ₁₃ Most people in the world follow one of the religions listed in the table below. Included is the name of the religion, the approximate date of its origin, its main sacred or ethical texts (if any) and its estimated numerical strength (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the world's population.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

This is exactly what happens when one paints with too broad a brush, or makes pejorative comments based on a lack of information.

1 vote

#11.3 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:18 PM EST

Enoch-2699399

This is your best shot? Good luck with it. G-d bless, Enoch.

#11.4 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:10 PM EST

weRdoomed

It's a Catch-22 because we are guaranteed (in the USA) to believe what we want to believe in terms of religion...but what if your religion dictates that every aspect of life should be governed by your religion?

Well, then that goes against what our country is founded on. So, in a sense, our country says "Please, by all means, practice whatever religion you want...so long as you don't try to push it on anyone else"...yet most religions consider it morally wrong to know the "truth" and not try to get non-believers to understand it.

As a non-believer, I feel strongly that the government needs to (and does a pretty good job) protect us from those who would like to make their religion the behaviorally "dominant" religion in our country.

2 votes

#12 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:33 AM EST

The Gunshark

It's a Catch-22 because we are guaranteed (in the USA) to believe what we want to believe in terms of religion...but what if your religion dictates that every aspect of life should be governed by your religion?

Easy. Your rights end where the other person's rights begin.

So, in a sense, our country says "Please, by all means, practice whatever religion you want...so long as you don't try to push it on anyone else".

I would rephrase that. Believe what you want, but don't force it on everyone else through the government.

There's a difference.

2 votes

#12.1 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:11 PM EST

weRdoomed

Easy. Your rights end where the other person's rights begin.

Then not everyone has the right to practice their religion.

I would rephrase that. Believe what you want, but don't force it on everyone else through the government.

Definitely. Good edit!

#12.2 - Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:17 PM EST

Village Idiot-2299796

Perhaps the 'Elimination' Of The 'Gods' ...

opens the way for the absolutization of the state in their place.

As an aside ...

As a non-believer I always stand firm...

Get it?

TRYUSINGLOGIC

Do religions understand their biggest dilemma?

Published to:

Number of adherents of world religions:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

New Users:

Existing Users:

TRYUSINGLOGIC

Do religions understand their biggest dilemma?

Published to:

Number of adherents of world religions:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: