Is Secularism and Legalism good for this country?

Originally Posted by MADDOG

Posted by Jerry Pitts:


You're right Jerry - you didn't actually specify "Christian". Your quotes allude to belief in God, not specifically Christianity, and so do the quotes from Heidi - so the founding fathers do not appear to have been athiests. They did profess belief in God.

Secular (according to Webster's New World Dictionary) is defined as: "not connected with church or religion"

and religion is defined as: "1. Belief in God or Gods; 2. system of worship"

Religion is further defined as such:

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Thus an informal conclusion could be made that religion does not necessarilly imply or mandate a worship of some divine entity. As an example, "he studied the USCode religiously"; or "his devotion to the State principles was such that is became his religion".

Originally Posted by MADDOG

Heidi's objection seems focused upon whatever dogma it is in whatever religion that teaches intolerance of others and labels others 'infidels'.

Based upon the informal conclusion above, and tying that to your appraisal of Heidis' focal point, it can be said that a person (state official) who has a complete devotion toward duty to the state, could conceivably regard trespassers of his perception of the state laws as an infidel. This state official would also have and conceivably display an intolerance toward those that he/she has deemed to be an infidel.

The above is mere conjecture, but IMHO it is worth further study.

Also, you might consider the following very short definition:

ism
n. Informal

A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory:

Originally Posted by MADDOG

So back to your question, Jerry - Is a secular society good for the USA?

A diverse society, with tolerance for a variety of backgrounds and spiritual paths would be good for the USA, IMHO. And standards of respectful behavior taught in our homes that encourage all people to respect other people(s) and treat them as we would like to be treated (as Jesus said, and so did Buddah). That attitude alone, if sincerely taught and lived up to by everyone in the world, would have prevented centuries of religion-inspired wars.

I concur that the initial schooling in proper behavior starts at home. However, if that source of proper training is not available for whatever reason, then there is no hope of everyone ever attaining such a desirable behaviour pattern other than through trial and error throughout his/her life. I am a classic example. The home training was there, but I paid no heed. Ended up spending a number of years behind bars in federal prison. Eventually, got involved in special training programs within the institution, and learned the principles that you are talking about.

Jerry

[MADDOG]

JerryPitts posted:

Based upon the informal conclusion above, and tying that to your appraisal of Heidis' focal point, it can be said that a person (state official) who has a complete devotion toward duty to the state, could conceivably regard trespassers of his perception of the state laws as an infidel. This state official would also have and conceivably display an intolerance toward those that he/she has deemed to be an infidel.
The above is mere conjecture, but IMHO it is worth further study.

I agree. The whole matter of intolerance and how we deal with it is worthy of further study. Most reasonable societies have pretty much catagorized obvious crimes against other beings and proscribed punishments for those. But followers of major religions often encourage serious crimes against those who are unbelievers, and do so through their interpretations of the scriptures in their religious books and in their preaching. If this pattern of activity and teaching/preaching could be stopped, we would all benefit. It is a tall order, I know. But we need to pursue it. I consider debates on the Internet to be an excellent way to wake people up and get them to realize what the core problem really is - worldwide religious intolerance.

Religious leaders, authors and speakers like Bishop John Shelby Spong are leading the way:

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

Bishop Spong is a wonderful place to begin opening your mind as a believer in God, IMHO.

Peace.

Originally Posted by MADDOG

Most reasonable societies have pretty much catagorized obvious crimes against other beings and proscribed punishments for those. But followers of major religions often encourage serious crimes against those who are unbelievers, and do so through their interpretations of the scriptures in their religious books and in their preaching. If this pattern of activity and teaching/preaching could be stopped, we would all benefit.

I have learned from previous studies that when a man or woman use the word "but", it usually negates the prior statement; the same applies to the use of the word 'however'. So negating your first statement and omitting the word 'but', you are apparently making a declaratory statement that "followers of major religions often encourage serious crimes against those who are unbelievers, and do so through their interpretations of scriptures in their religious books and in their preaching."
Because this is a declaratory statement, it must be based upon some set of known facts such as research papers, statistics, etc. Are those facts available where the rest of this group can study them and ascertain the truth of that matter? Is this based on an opinion or does it have qualifying documentation?

Originally Posted by MADDOG

It is a tall order, I know. But we need to pursue it.

The same introductory comments: and apparently you are expressing an opinion as you have not expressed anything that would lead another to believe that you are commenting on any known facts.

Originally Posted by MADDOG

I consider debates on the Internet to be an excellent way to wake people up and get them to realize what the core problem really is - worldwide religious intolerance.

I consider the internet to be an ample way to transmit information to others; what they tend to do with that information is another matter. You apparently believe that 'worldwide religious intolerance' is the core problem. Would you please expound on that statement and put forth the rationale you use in making that statement. That would be provided by presenting the facts as mentioned in the first paragraph.

Originally Posted by MADDOG

Religious leaders, authors and speakers like Bishop John Shelby Spong are leading the way:

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

Bishop Spong is a wonderful place to begin opening your mind as a believer in God, IMHO.

Peace.

I am not familiar with the gentleman you reference nor of his writings, therefore I will have to reserve comment until a later time.

Jerry.

[MADDOG]

Jerry Pitts wrote:

you are apparently making a declaratory statement that "followers of major religions often encourage serious crimes against those who are unbelievers, and do so through their interpretations of scriptures in their religious books and in their preaching."
Because this is a declaratory statement, it must be based upon some set of known facts such as research papers, statistics, etc. Are those facts available where the rest of this group can study them and ascertain the truth of that matter? Is this based on an opinion or does it have qualifying documentation?

Any reasonable student of history should at least be somewhat familiar with the religiously motivated wars and abuses that have occurred over the centuries. If not, I would have to presume denial and/or deliberate refusal to observe and admit the same.

Just to name a few, off the top of my head:

All three "Holy Crusades" during which tens of thousands of muslims and Christians were killed, the great library at Alexandria was destroyed, and Jerusalem was sacked and taken first by the Christians, and then taken back by the muslims under Saladin. The third Crusade under Richard the Lionheart was technically a draw, as he could not defeat Saladin and they agreed to an uneasy truce. A well-produced series on the History Channel documented this extremely well recently.

Throughout thousands of years of history Israel has been taken away from the Jews, then taken back by the Jews, and is now the seat of ongoing religious enmity and murderous violence between the Jews and the Islamic peoples - both of which (along with the Christians) are supposedly believers in the God of Abraham.... yet they continue to murder each other over religious differences and a piece of land.

In America, the Salem witch burnings, and the spurious activities of the KKK (who burn crosses on the lawns of people whom they consider non-Christian and therefore undesirable as neighbors).

In Ireland, Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other over religious differences for hundreds of years.

In East India, after Ghandi managed to get the British Imperialists out of his country, he was dismayed to find the Hindus and Muslims returning to their historical pattern of violence against each other due to religious differences.

Islamic terrorists seek to murder us because we do not worship God the same way that they do.

Get the picture??? Need I say more???

Say no more, well stated, nuff said. Those facts indeed would be a motive for someone to take the position that you have.

What moral venue do you accept as a basis for what you recognized to be 'wrong' or 'evil' in regard to these massive atrocities? In other words, what makes you believe that these things are wrong or evil?

Jerry

I hope we are all welcome to respond to your questions, Jerry, because they are so important.

Jerry posted:

What moral venue do you accept as a basis for what you recognized to be 'wrong' or 'evil' in regard to these massive atrocities?

Speaking for myself, I don't believe I need an external influence or "moral venue" in order to recognize those atrocities as being wrong. During the course of my life, I grew to disapprove of so-called religious disciplines and dogma that would support the abuse and even the murder of people who believe and/or behave differently.

In other words, what makes you believe that these things are wrong or evil?

My own heart, mind and conscience... which is why I cannot be a part of any organized religion.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

I hope we are all welcome to respond to your questions, Jerry, because they are so important.

Well of course everyone is invited to join the discussion and insert their comments.

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

Jerry posted:


Speaking for myself, I don't believe I need an external influence or "moral venue" in order to recognize those atrocities as being wrong. During the course of my life, I grew to disapprove of so-called religious disciplines and dogma that would support the abuse and even the murder of people who believe and/or behave differently.

Would this internal guidance of yours then also include the murders that are being committed in the guise of National Security? in example, the alleged war on terror. Would that internal guidance also forbid the taking of life as in capital punishment?

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

My own heart, mind and conscience... which is why I cannot be a part of any organized religion.

The heart I recognize to be an internal organ that pumps blood throughout the body. The mind is an abstract term unless you are referencing the brain. The conscience is an unknown. Can you please clairfy what the conscience is and also point to a authority source?

Jerry.

[Admin]

This thread has gotten too long, please let's get back to the subjects at hand.

Originally Posted by Admin

This thread has gotten too long, please let's get back to the subjects at hand.

WTH?

Are you kidding?

Henry Franklin

[Admin]

I was merely trying to get us back to on topic, I realize now that it was a mistake and from now on I'll just let you guys do your thing.