Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2008, 08:54 AM   #1 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Does Freedom of Religion also mean Freedom from Religion?

In this thead Willravel stated that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
"freedom of religion" also means "freedom from religion"
While this one of the few times that I agree with him...does it? Does it really? Read the 1st Amendment...
Quote:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Specifically...read "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Way back when, in this thread I quoted an individual that had written into the Omaha World Herald the following.
Quote:
A Christian is called by God to worship Him always, and not just in His house of worship. This includes following His commands, commandments and guidance provided by His word, the Bible.

Those who demand a separation of church and state are attacking Christians for their beliefs. There can never be a separation of church and state for those of us who call ourselves Christians. It goes against our beliefs.

And for those who do not want Christians to "force their beliefs upon those who choose not to believe," sorry, but Jesus told us Christians to go and make disciples (followers) of all nations. To do anything less would be to turn our backs on God.

Remember this: When God is removed from our lives and our government, it leaves a void to be filled by that which opposes God - in another word, Satan. The government shall not establish a religion, but the government is required to protect religion.

No matter how hard one may try to prove otherwise, this country was founded on religious principles and beliefs. It is important that our children are taught this not only in church but also as a matter of history in our schools.
So...this individual sees (saw) it as not only his Christian duty, but as his right to cram his religion down my throat.

Is that his constitutional right? Does freedom of religion preclude freedom from religion?
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:01 AM   #2 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
There is no such provision for the freedom from religion.

What is freedom from religion, exactly? Does it mean you can tell the Muslim man praying in public to stop? I don't think so. This is quite close to an infringement on the right of freedom of speech in addition to the religious right.

There should be no special status for religion in this respect.

I cannot really comment more until I have a clearer view of what people view as a right to "freedom from religion." It's pretty murky to me at the moment.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:01 AM   #3 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Well, the Constitution doesn't grant you any right not to have to hear things you disagree with, or find distasteful or even offensive. In fact, the sentiment "I may not agree with it but I defend your right to say it" is central to the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Regarding religion, the First Amendment says two things:
- There will be no established religion of the US. So, no "official religion" like the Church of England, and no we're NOT "a Christian nation".
- There will be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion. So if a person's religion calls for them to proselytize, they have the right to do that. Which is why Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses can go door to door like vacuum salesmen, and why people can preach on the sidewalk. No governmental agency (including police) may silence them for what they say.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:19 AM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOR
While this one of the few times that I agree with him...
...sniff... what happened to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
What is freedom from religion, exactly?
Freedom from religion: I (a citizen of the United States) can't be forced to take part in or believe in religion.

It's essentially allowing for the right of disbelief to be equal to the right to belief.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:31 AM   #5 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel

Freedom from religion: I (a citizen of the United States) can't be forced to take part in or believe in religion.

It's essentially allowing for the right of disbelief to be equal to the right to belief.
If THAT is the definition of freedom from religion, then yes, you have that right. If it's BOR's definition, that you are free from having to ever hear about religious practices, then no, you do not have that right, unless you are lucky enough to dodge the bible thumpers. Good luck with that.
__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato


My Homepage
xepherys is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:42 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
I'm sure there are people posting here far more knowledgeable regarding constitutional law than me, so take this for what it's worth.

From my understanding of history, the idea behind the first amendment came about because of the Church of England. The founding fathers did not want their leaders, i.e. government, to dictate their beliefs to them. I am under the impression that the founding fathers were very much adherent to the idea of personal freedom.

I wonder if the founding fathers could envision the prevalence and saturation of media in today's world and what they would have said about it. Especially when it comes to claims that only the federal government is restricted from censorship and preferential treatment of religion.

I tend to look at the idea behind why they included the separation clause in the first amendment and I have to believe that their intent was to prevent religion from being used as a tool of control. I have to wonder if their ideas of freedom would have included the ability for corporations, states, and individuals to use the absence of them in the first amendment as a means to justify their actions.

As an aside, I have to say I'm growing a little tired of Christians complaining about being the only group left in America that it's okay to persecute. Give me a fucking break.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:48 AM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
As an aside, I have to say I'm growing a little tired of Christians complaining about being the only group left in America that it's okay to persecute. Give me a fucking break.
I finally get to use my graphic!


Edit: Nom nom.

Last edited by Willravel; 07-08-2008 at 10:03 AM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 09:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Freedom from religion: I (a citizen of the United States) can't be forced to take part in or believe in religion.

It's essentially allowing for the right of disbelief to be equal to the right to belief.
Okay, that reframes my own view on this a bit. Thanks. Of course one shouldn't be force to believe something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
As an aside, I have to say I'm growing a little tired of Christians complaining about being the only group left in America that it's okay to persecute. Give me a fucking break.
I know. That complaint should be the entitlement of white males in general....
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 02:37 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
That's the problem with debating law and policy based upon pithy phrases. 'Freedom of religion' and 'Freedom from religion' are such ambigious statements that the question is meaningless until you define your terms better. Of course, as others have pointed out, in the US we have what most people think of as freedom of religion - the freedom to worship (or not) as we please. We don't have freedom *from* religion in the sense that we have the right not to hear about other people's religion, or see them practicing their faith...within reasonable limits, of course.

The interesting questions are those on the fringes - does "In God we trust" on the dollar bill, the official currency of the US, constitute establishment of religion? What about religious references in other official documents, religious iconography on public buildings (moses and the ten commandments on the supreme court building, for instance).

I agree with groups like the ACLU in almost every instance, but I think they often go too far with regards to displays like these - at some point, you have to accept a 'live and let live' philosophy. You often hear about the ACLU suing to remove this or that religious display. I don't think merely having a religious display, even on government property, is establishment of religion.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 03:28 PM   #10 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Interesting fact: a major group fighting for the first amendment when these things were being discussed? The evangelicals.

The first amendment not only protects the state from the church, but also protects the church from the state. For a lot of "founding fathers," they saw the first amendment as a way to maintain the purity of their religion without corruption from the political sphere.

Just goes to show how core ideas can change drastically over time.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 03:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Actually, the first amendment does protect freedom from religion, in the sense that the government can't force you to adopt any religion. What it doesn't protect is freedom from exposure to religion, meaning that if your fellow citizens want to flaunt their religion in your presence there's not a damn thing you can do about it - pretty much the same as you can't do a damn thing about people doing all sorts of other things in your presence. Those are often protected by the other clauses of the first amendment (speech, press and assembly).
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-08-2008, 04:16 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Actually, the first amendment does protect freedom from religion, in the sense that the government can't force you to adopt any religion. What it doesn't protect is freedom from exposure to religion, meaning that if your fellow citizens want to flaunt their religion in your presence there's not a damn thing you can do about it - pretty much the same as you can't do a damn thing about people doing all sorts of other things in your presence. Those are often protected by the other clauses of the first amendment (speech, press and assembly).
Within reason, of course.

I am, alas, not allowed to flaunt my penis in everyone's direction.




Sorry, ladies. It's the law.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 03:09 AM   #13 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
yeah.

mostly, loquitor said what i think is the only response to the thread-bind.
but it is strange that xtians seem to want to change people to their bizarre-o way of thinking.
i like this quote, because i think it explains something of it:

Quote:
When one puts objectivity in parenthesis, all views, all verses in the multiverse are equally valid. Understanding this, you lose the passion for changing the other. One of the results is that you look apathetic to people. Now, those who do not live with objectivity in parentheses have a passion for changing the other. So they have this passion and you do not. For example, at the university where I work, people may say, ‘Humberto is not really interested in anything,’ because I don’t have the passion in the same sense that the person that has objectivity without parentheses. And I think that this is the main difficulty. To other people you may seem too tolerant. However, if the others also put objectivity in parentheses , you discover that disagreements can only be solved by entering a domain of co-inspiration, in which things are done together because the participants want to do them. With objectivity in parentheses, it is easy to do things together because one is not denying the other in the process of doing them.

Humberto Maturana - Interview 1985.
the idea of an "objective" world, given in one way only, is a consequence of this strange assumption that there is a god-character and nothing else.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 03:26 AM   #14 (permalink)
Wise-ass Latino
 
QuasiMondo's Avatar
 
Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA
Quote:
A Christian is called by God to worship Him always, and not just in His house of worship. This includes following His commands, commandments and guidance provided by His word, the Bible.

Those who demand a separation of church and state are attacking Christians for their beliefs. There can never be a separation of church and state for those of us who call ourselves Christians. It goes against our beliefs.

And for those who do not want Christians to "force their beliefs upon those who choose not to believe," sorry, but Jesus told us Christians to go and make disciples (followers) of all nations. To do anything less would be to turn our backs on God.

Remember this: When God is removed from our lives and our government, it leaves a void to be filled by that which opposes God - in another word, Satan. The government shall not establish a religion, but the government is required to protect religion.

No matter how hard one may try to prove otherwise, this country was founded on religious principles and beliefs. It is important that our children are taught this not only in church but also as a matter of history in our schools.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this guy's selective reading of the bible.

Luke 9:5-6 "When you visit a home and stay there, and go out from there, if people don't welcome you, when you leave that city, shake its dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

In effect, as a Christian, if he is forcing people to turn, then he is not following the will of his God.
__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator
QuasiMondo is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 05:16 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
QM, if a missionary wants to approach you on the street, s/he has a right to try, just as you have a right to say you're not interested and walk away. The fallacy of the person who put up that post is that he is confusing individual rights with societal organization. He has the right to missionize, minister or what have you, all without interference from the govt, and subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions (standard first amendment boilerplate that applies to freedom of speech). What he does not have the right to do is demand that the government, with its power to compel people, support his mission. That's not a violation of his right to missionize in the slightest.
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 06:23 AM   #16 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Has the American military become a Christian organization?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:07 AM   #17 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Has the American military become a Christian organization?
I saw that this morning and was going to post it as it's own thread. There's lots of interpretation to be guessed at why the individual didn't get any promotions. Sometimes, you don't get promotions because it's not you. Just because you think it's your time, doesn't mean that it is.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:08 AM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Has the American military become a Christian organization?
That's a whole other thread.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:10 AM   #19 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I saw that this morning and was going to post it as it's own thread. There's lots of interpretation to be guessed at why the individual didn't get any promotions. Sometimes, you don't get promotions because it's not you. Just because you think it's your time, doesn't mean that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's a whole other thread.
I thought of that but realized the context fits well here. I don't have the chops to set a thread up about this.

After you?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:14 AM   #20 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The question as to it's constitutionality would fit in this thread nicely, but as to whether the US military is Christian? Nah. That's a different thread.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 07:27 AM   #21 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Sometimes, you don't get promotions because it's not you. Just because you think it's your time, doesn't mean that it is.
From the article:
He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.
What are the Constitutional implications of that? Does he have a case?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:02 AM   #22 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
From the article:
He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.
What are the Constitutional implications of that? Does he have a case?
Again, there's lots to be inferred here. If I look at the quote as it is, it's about praying. But let's remove the word pray and use the word participate for the rest of the example I will use.

If the troops do not find him an acceptable leader because he won't participate in the social constructs that are important to them, then how effective would he be as a leader?

This means from the simplest participations of breaking beer, bread, football, joking, whore hunting, fraternizing, whatever the construct is for bonding the group.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:53 AM   #23 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
But why remove the word pray? That's what he was told. Maybe he has no problem playing football and drinking beer and partaking in the occasional whore (or other effective team-building exercise). But that wasn't what was raised as an issue. He was essentially told he would be a crappy leader because he doesn't pray (or, if you like, he isn't a Christian).
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 08:58 AM   #24 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
Given the issues of STI I don't think he should have to partake in the occasional whore if he doesn't want to either. Whether or not he gets promoted should be based on his job performance, not his religion, or his whore-mongering or non-whore-mongering. Whether or not he excells in athletics such as football, or even has an interest in football should not matter either, the military's job is to kill our enemies and break their stuff, not to know the latest NFL standings or to be able to know the basic fundamentals of the sport. (I happen to love football, though I'm not much of an athlete)

Last edited by Terrell; 07-09-2008 at 09:02 AM..
Terrell is offline  
Old 07-09-2008, 09:53 AM   #25 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But why remove the word pray? That's what he was told. Maybe he has no problem playing football and drinking beer and partaking in the occasional whore (or other effective team-building exercise). But that wasn't what was raised as an issue. He was essentially told he would be a crappy leader because he doesn't pray (or, if you like, he isn't a Christian).
because the activity was pray, so in effect if the team requirement was to pray, be it as it may, even pull out the carpet and bow to Mecca at the precise times, then it should have the same impact, no?

so putting it in perspective of activity which is the crux of the leadership aspect, which is why I framed it as such.

People won't dispense with such kinds of sentences in corporate america, I have a hard time beleiving that the words came out exactly in that manner. I'd go with, praying was cited as an example. If they can't ask or can't tell about homosexuality logic seems to me that subjugating someone to prayer also isn't logical.

again, the article leaves lots of opportunity for perspective jiggering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrell
Given the issues of STI I don't think he should have to partake in the occasional whore if he doesn't want to either. Whether or not he gets promoted should be based on his job performance, not his religion, or his whore-mongering or non-whore-mongering. Whether or not he excells in athletics such as football, or even has an interest in football should not matter either, the military's job is to kill our enemies and break their stuff, not to know the latest NFL standings or to be able to know the basic fundamentals of the sport. (I happen to love football, though I'm not much of an athlete)
very true, but in the tests of leadership, if it's sensed that he cannot lead because he doesn't garner the respect of the team, then it doesn't matter what the reasons are or his performance. Just because you think you should be promoted doesn't mean you are.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 07-09-2008 at 09:54 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 07-13-2008, 08:59 PM   #26 (permalink)
Crazy
 
ipollux's Avatar
 
I consider religion an illness that causes one to stop thinking for themself. For example, I don't need medicine, god will heal me. In addition, when a nation embraces religion, it will commit atrocities, i.e. Iraq.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
--Blaise Pascal
ipollux is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 03:50 AM   #27 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipollux
I consider religion an illness that causes one to stop thinking for themself. For example, I don't need medicine, god will heal me. In addition, when a nation embraces religion, it will commit atrocities, i.e. Iraq.
"Religion is poison."
--Chairman Mao Zedong

Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to everything. Buddhism, for example, is about empowering your mind though consciousness. It is essential to think for yourself. Also, there are many active Christians who would disagree with this sentiment on the basis of their active faith and the belief that God doesn't do things for you, he merely helps.

The violence thing is another issue. Religion is not the only culprit.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:30 AM   #28 (permalink)
You had me at hello
 
Poppinjay's Avatar
 
Location: DC/Coastal VA
I agree with most of that, except Buddhism isn't a religion. It's a system of Philosophy based on a teacher's lessons, much like Taoism or Platonic practice (Plato, by the way, believed many were too stupid to make it on their own and should be slaves under their mental and social betters).

But the idea that religion allows people to excuse the thought process is just wrong. Listen to Jewish Sanhedrin argue over the Talmud as they seek a way to live with the Law. Like Ned Flanders said, they have to figure out how to obey the parts that contradict the other parts.

The idea that all wars were fought over religion is also a moldy canard. All wars were fought over riches, frequently in the guise of religious conversion.
__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet
Poppinjay is offline  
Old 07-14-2008, 08:26 AM   #29 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
I agree with most of that, except Buddhism isn't a religion. It's a system of Philosophy based on a teacher's lessons, much like Taoism or Platonic practice (Plato, by the way, believed many were too stupid to make it on their own and should be slaves under their mental and social betters)
It's alternatively a religion and a philosophy. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is a religion. The difference being the religious Buddhism has practices and symbols outside what the Buddha taught. They are materialistic "tools" for reinforcing the teachings. But this is more or less a religion. The philosophy more or less describes the states attained by Buddhas and the path on which they travelled to get there. Monks aren't just philosophers; they're religious members.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 11:03 PM   #30 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Excuse the interruption, but I think the Mao quote, or any quote from any 20th century communist/socialist leader, whether it be Stalin, Hitler, Tito, Hussein, is entirely false and bogus.

Religion is poison? No it is not. People act of their own volition. I don't recall Jesus calling for war or genocide, and not that he is the only religious figure, but Christians get knocked alot, so I am bringing it to that.

Look at those aforementioned dickheads I mentioned, where the beloved state or government outlawed religion, or better yet became the religion, millions upon millions died in the name of no god.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
 

Tags
freedom, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360