|
|
 Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:17 PM |
|
|
Heroic Knight
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:02 PM
Posts: 206,
Visits: 644
|
|
It might sound odd, but I do feel that religion should be seen as a more personal subject. Not to be taught in schools, nor even proselytised on telly. Just you and whatver higher being you want to acknowledge. It doesn't sound odd at all - in fact, its an extremely common view these days, especially in Britain. Personally, I think its a bit of an ideal world situation - it would be wonderful if things could work like that, but I find it highly unlikely. Teaching about religion in school may seem like proselytising, but ideally its effect should be to inform children about the variety of beliefs in the world, and the ways in which they effect people's lives. Ignoring religion does not make it go away, it merely leads to a generation completely unprepared to deal with, and therefore susceptible to, the claims of religious groups. Look at some of the more extreme reactions after 9/11 - which included Sikh communities in Britain being attacked in retribution for the hijacking, because they wore turbans. When a large portion of the world media seems busy telling people that Islam teaches that violent suicide is the way to get into Heaven, don't we have the duty to teach children that this is not the case, and to help them understand what the Muslims they will live and work alongside really believe in? I always make the point when starting with a new class that we're learning about people, not God, and that people's beliefs are an important part of their lives. Britain seems far more of a secular society than America, and yet our secondary schools are legally obliged to provide RE lessons to all pupils - its not about conversion or teaching children what to believe (or it shouldn't be, at any rate), but giving them essential preparation for the fact that they are growing up in a world where millions of people have strong religious beliefs, and are prepared to effect other people's lives because of these beliefs. PS - Sorry for any spelling mistakes, poor grammar or simple absence of any sense whatsoever. Year 7 reports are due at the moment, and I think I'm actually starting to go blind from writing.
No spoken or written word can ever be a substitute for one's own practical experience. No-one too can convince another who does not wish to believe what he is told - only the doubter loses by his incredulity - T.C. Lethbridge
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:43 PM |
|
|
Apprentice
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:47 PM
Posts: 17,
Visits: 90
|
|
are they really that dumb? or not?
Which result in particular do you think wouldn't be replicated in some form or other in other Western countries?
What part makes you think that Americans are 'that dumb'?
"I like the word 'indolence'. It makes my laziness sound classy."
-Bern Williams
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:04 PM |
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
It doesn't sound odd at all - in fact, its an extremely common view these days, especially in Britain.
It's called being unreligious (not quite the same as being atheistic).
Personally, I think its a bit of an ideal world situation - it would be wonderful if things could work like that, but I find it highly unlikely.
Sounds like a recipe for the distintegration of culture (lets not do things together, lets just stay at home and do different things on our own) and the generation of unpredictable psychopaths (isn't this more or less the problem with the fundamentalist protestants? Since it's all about individual revelation, your vicar doesn't have the authority to say "No, the Bible does not say burn all women with funny eyes. You have misunderstood!").
I don't think it's at all ideal (cars would be better if they were plant pots, then they wouldn't produce so much carbon dioxide) since the primary function of religion seems to be to unite people. Replacing it with something that doesn't do that hardly seems ideal (didn't work out so well in Communist Russian states).
Teaching about religion in school may seem like proselytising, but ideally its effect should be to inform children about the variety of beliefs in the world, and the ways in which they effect people's lives. Ignoring religion does not make it go away, it merely leads to a generation completely unprepared to deal with, and therefore susceptible to, the claims of religious groups.
Because information is neutral and knowledge is inherently harmless? Teachers can teach without passing on their own conceptions (in which case, the kids really would be left completely unprepared for life)? Religious parents will accept consigning their children to eternal torment should they die young is a reasonable is an acceptable risk just so they can go to a state funded school (instead of the usually nicer, better funded religious school)? Children will be happy growing up not allowed to share the beliefs of their parents?
violent suicide is the way to get into Heaven, don't we have the duty to teach children that this is not the case, and to help them understand whatthe Muslims they will live and work alongside really believe in?
Violent suicide/heroic self-sacrifice. If you honestly believe that your people - the function of religion being to make brothers of people who are vastly separated - are being killed and oppressed, isn't it your duty to act? I don't really think the Koran is supporting anything much more than normal civic values - support your people against all attackers. Are Muslims getting dicked on? Yes. Should other Muslims do something about it? Yes, if they are real Muslims. Is suicide-bombing a very clear way of showing how strongly you feel about it? Does it get attention? Hell, yes. Is it the best long-term strategy for Muslims? Perhaps/perhaps not - no one seems to have come forward with something better.
I always make the point when starting with a new class that we're learning about people, not God, and that people's beliefs are an important part of their lives.
Worth stressing that the people who did/do these things are real people. Not cardboard cut-outs, not insane maniacs. They have reasons for doing what they do, just as sound as anyone else does (until we come up with some metric for "Correct Think" at least).
essential preparation for the fact that they are growing up in a world where millions of people have strong religious beliefs, and are prepared to effect other people's lives because of these beliefs.
Really, shouldn't that be geography, then? Just to sever the tie to when it was about instructing people in the correct religion.
Marios
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:07 PM |
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
DaveR (6/15/2006)
are they really that dumb? or not?
Which result in particular do you think wouldn't be replicated in some form or other in other Western countries?
What part makes you think that Americans are 'that dumb'?
This was delibrately phrased as a two part question "are they dumb? or not?" to inspire discussion. At no point did i say they were dumb.
Or at least, no more dumb than any other group of people that think the bible is the literal word of god.
As for "any other western country" - um, alot of them? America is a far more religous country than the UK and i would guess alot of european countries too. I believe Norway, Finland and similar are fairly secular too?
And I agree with Richie: Teaching about religion to promote understanding is very worthwhile and important. However, I also think schools should teach basic philosophy of religion/critical thinking/scientific method too so that kids can see how ludicrous religous arguments are.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:26 PM |
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:05 PM
Posts: 190,
Visits: 1,518
|
|
Coops
It might sound odd, but I do feel that religion should be seen as a more personal subject. Not to be taught in schools, nor even proselytised on telly. Just you and whatver higher being you want to acknowledge.
Marios
If you don't share it with other people, then it's not actually a religion.
It might sound odd, but I actually agree with both Coops and Marios here... but then most people tend to view faith and religion as the same thing, interchanable parts of a single entity. I tend to diferentiate faith and religion and see them as two seperate and distinct parts...
Faith comes from within, it is personal and it is private and it shapes and informs our very nature of who we are, how we act, and what we believe. Faith is seperate to religion, often they are related but not always.
Religion is external, the often dogmatic voice of a greater entity, the combined views of a great many that rules, guides, influences and instructs.
It is the voice if religion that can often be overpowering, authoritarian, and distorted. Here I agree with coops that religion should not have influence in politics, schools etc. But faith is personal and like Marios says (sort of) that is the part that is shared with other people in everything that we say or do.
Share your faith, not your religion. If people like what they see, and respect your words and actions then they will take from it and it will spread. Attempting to share a religion often becomes confrontational, authoritarian, and a distortion of the true faith of those that follow that religion.
Make sense?
____________________________________________________________
Idiots can be so much fun, thats why every village wants one....
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:19 PM |
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Faith comes from within, it is personal and it is private and it shapes and informs our very nature of who we are, how we act, and what we believe. Faith is seperate to religion, often they are related but not always.
One of these two is observable, the other is conjectured and invisible (much like God). If faith comes from within and shapes/informs who we are/how we act/what we believe then why do people have such similar identities/behaviours/beliefs? I don't see any evidence for this mystical form of faith and it seems entirely superfluous (I don't need it to adequately describe human behaviour in the way I need the concept of religion).
Religion is external, the often dogmatic voice of a greater entity, the combined views of a great many that rules, guides, influences and instructs.
An aspect of human culture.
It is the voice if religion that can often be overpowering, authoritarian, and distorted.
And the voice of 'faith' can be argued to create the lone nutters, small charismatic sects.
Here I agree with coops that religion should not have influence in politics, schools etc.
Then what point is there in religion? Religions are political entities. I don't see why a religious person would not want to act - politically - on their religious beliefs or school their children in what they believe is right. The separation of Church and State was a dissident protestant movement to protect non-conformist forms of protestantism. It's not about removing religion from state (still lots of and lots of unashamed references to God - the _Christian_ God), but about avoiding the situation where the temporal monarch can dictate the correct kind of protestantism. As such, it was a concept born in the moment of religious people feeling weak and persecuted. If you were strong (the majority of the populace followed one particular cant), then you'd have to be stupid to do such a thing.
But faith is personal and like Marios says (sort of) that is the part that is shared with other people in everything that we say or do.
If it's shared, then I'd probably count it as 'religion' (if culture is that thing which informs/shapes our identity/behaviour/beliefs then I think 'religion' has a better claim to that than 'faith').
Share your faith, not your religion.
What does this mean?
If people like what they see, and respect your words and actions then they will take from it and it will spread. Attempting to share a religion often becomes confrontational, authoritarian, and a distortion of the true faith of those that follow that religion.
Make sense?
Seems like you're redefining "true faith" based on contemporary feeling - effectively abandoning the core of the religion ("Yes, I'm a Catholic, but you know, I think abortion and contraception might be ok for some people. Perhaps God just isn't for everyone, you know? It's not my place to say what's right and wrong.") but keeping the name. Look at the Bible, doesn't really seem to have a problem with confrontation or authority (a large part of it seems to be saying "Here is authority. Now, go forth and confront those who do not accept it with the Good News.". What did Jesus say?
Luke begining of Chapter 9 and Chaper 10 - sending out the 12 apostles, sending forth his disciples:
"But if a town refuses you, go out into its streets and say 'We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. And don't forget the Kingdom of God is near!'".
"Anyone who rejects you is rejecting me."
Sounds pretty confrontationally authoritative to me!
Marios
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:49 PM |
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:05 PM
Posts: 190,
Visits: 1,518
|
|
Marios (6/15/2006)
One of these two is observable, the other is conjectured and invisible (much like God). If faith comes from within and shapes/informs who we are/how we act/what we believe then why do people have such similar identities/behaviours/beliefs? I don't see any evidence for this mystical form of faith and it seems entirely superfluous (I don't need it to adequately describe human behaviour in the way I need the concept of religion).
Who said anything about a "mystical form of faith"? Faith and religion are often synonomous but not necessarily so. Faith is simply what you believe and need not be "mystical", and far from being similair perhaps the opposite is true with no two people ever truely having the same beliefs even those that on the surface would follow the same religion. It seems to me that your comparmentalising and catagorising large groups of people rather than considering the individual. True we all have common drives, desires and needs, and its this comminality that on the surface gives an impression of "sameness", but beneath that surface we also have individual charateristics shaped by our own personal faith, experiances and desires.
Marios (6/15/2006)
An aspect of human culture.
An aspect of culture, not its entirety... religion has its place, but it also has its boundaries. A problem exists when religion exceeds those boundaries.
Marios (6/15/2006)
And the voice of 'faith' can be argued to create the lone nutters, small charismatic sects.
Yes, absoloutly true.....
Marios (6/15/2006)
Then what point is there in religion?
Religion is the unified, or group idientity. It is often but not always synonomous with the individuals faith or idientity.
Marios (6/15/2006)
I don't see why a religious person would not want to act - politically - on their religious beliefs or school their children in what they believe is right.
Then may I suggest you widen your knowledge and experiances of various religions. A religion serves a diety, politics serves the people. This is a very important and fundemantaly distinction between religion and politics and whilst its true to say that for the larger part the aims of religion and politics are often the same it is not always true. That is why it becomes so important to seperate religion and politics. Most religions actually recognise this fact, some actually place the people before the diety as does many peoples personal faiths. Religion and politics are very closely intertwined and there is naturally some "cross over", but at their heart they are very distinct and seperate entities. Religion should drive people to act religiously not politically, politics should drive people to act politically not religiously.
Marios (6/15/2006)
If it's shared, then I'd probably count it as 'religion' (if culture is that thing which informs/shapes our identity/behaviour/beliefs then I think 'religion' has a better claim to that than 'faith').
My religion guides me, but my faith drives me... if I have no religion then it is still my beliefs (my faith) that drives everything that I say and do. Everytime I interact with another it is my faith that shapes how I behave and what I say, thus it is my faith that I share through these interactions not my religion. As for culture (here we go again with the catagorising groups), I am of the same culture as you, those in westminster, the people in town, my next door neighbour, yet still my opinions are not always the same as theirs because my beliefs and my opinions are mine informed by my faith. Thus faith is the bedrock of my individual actions, not those of my culture or my religion, and again it is that which I share by my interactions with others.
Marios (6/15/2006)
Seems like you're redefining "true faith" based on contemporary feeling
No, I'm defining my faith by what I believe in... nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and if you look at faith and religion throughout time, not just the impact of catholisism over 1500 years then you would understand that my views are far from contemporary.
Marios (6/15/2006)
effectively abandoning the core of the religion ("Yes, I'm a Catholic, but you know, I think abortion and contraception might be ok for some people. Perhaps God just isn't for everyone, you know? It's not my place to say what's right and wrong.") but keeping the name. Look at the Bible, doesn't really seem to have a problem with confrontation or authority (a large part of it seems to be saying "Here is authority. Now, go forth and confront those who do not accept it with the Good News.". What did Jesus say?
Luke begining of Chapter 9 and Chaper 10 - sending out the 12 apostles, sending forth his disciples:
"But if a town refuses you, go out into its streets and say 'We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. And don't forget the Kingdom of God is near!'".
"Anyone who rejects you is rejecting me."
Sounds pretty confrontationally authoritative to me!
Marios
Yes, very confrontational... precisely my point that religion is confrontational whereas faith is not necessarilly so (tale of the good samariton). However, this is bit of your post is largely irrelevant as you seem to have assumed that I am christian or catholic or some such... I'm not.
____________________________________________________________
Idiots can be so much fun, thats why every village wants one....
|
|
|
|
| Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 PM |
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Who said anything about a "mystical form of faith"?
Faith comes from within, it is personal and it is private and it shapes and informs our very nature of who we are, how we act, and what we believe. Faith is seperate to religion, often they are related but not always.
This sounds like textbook mysticism to me. If I'm wrong, tell me how I would observe or measure it.
Faith and religion are often synonomous but not necessarily so. Faith is simply what you believe and need not be "mystical", and far from being similair perhaps the opposite is true with no two people ever truely having the same beliefs even those that on the surface would follow the same religion.
Depends how you define "follow the same religion" if you mean "identify as X and hold this set of core beliefs", then I don't agree. I don't think it's too hard to nail down the differences between Catholics, Protestants and lapsed Catholics.
Faith is belief that comes from within and is personal and private - how do you know? I can't see how you could possibly argue that beliefs come from within when you have to gain the language and concepts to formulate through discussion and interaction with other people. Perhaps some sort of bizarre wildling run where you infer beliefs from observed behaviour of a child that's grown up without any human contact. I'd be impressed if it started venerating Jesus Christ without prompting.
Obviously, no two things are ever exactly the same (or they wouldn't be distinguishable as separate entities), but I don't think that renders distinguishing objects and types irrelevant.
It seems to me that your comparmentalising and catagorising large groups of people rather than considering the individual.
In what way "considering the individual"? Individuals don't seem to have any problem whatsoever identifying with compartments and categories. I can't see how someone could described their beliefs without reference to compartment or categories (without being ridiculously "Ah!" mystical and quoting inane koans).
True we all have common drives, desires and needs, and its this comminality that on the surface gives an impression of "sameness", but beneath that surface we also have individual charateristics shaped by our own personal faith, experiances and desires.
Personal faith? Defined and observed how?
I'll accept that people seem to have separate (although not very separate, since we don't have much problem discussing/imagining ourselves in other peoples places) experiences. Desires don't seem particularly unique - but I suppose you could that the expressed desire to stick a paperclip up your left nostril is not the same as the expressed desire to stick a paperclip up your right nostril.
But what's all this crap about personal faith? Is it like phlogiston?
Religion is the unified, or group idientity.
Yes, that's part of it (or, perhaps, the active social element), just like any cultural entity.
It is often but not always synonomous with the individuals faith
Not at all clear what, if anything, this means.
or idientity.
Meaning? Obviously, a religion isn't all of your identity - observably identity is made up of many group/shared identities - but I don't see where you're going or how this explains what you mean by "faith".
Marios (6/15/2006)
I don't see why a religious person would not want to act - politically - on their religious beliefs or school their children in what they believe is right.Then may I suggest you widen your knowledge and experiances of various religions.
Always happy to. Are you talking about any one in particular?
A religion serves a diety, politics serves the people.
This is awfully trite. Are you trying to say that religion has nothing to do with politics because "God" has nothing to do with "people"? That's a bit ridiculous, even at first glance.
This is a very important and fundemantaly distinction between religion and politics and whilst its true to say that for the larger part the aims of religion and politics are often the ame it is not always true.
I can't think of a single religion which hasn't had some effect, some desired and expressed aim on the political sphere (even religions which specify non-interference and withdrawal from temporal matters garner immense influence - consider the history of monastic orders worldwide). To be honest, it's a bit of a tautology - politics is about human interaction, religion is about a specific form of human interaction. If some dude got up one day, had an idea and never told anyone about it, that may have no effect on the politics of the local society, but then it's not a religion.
That is why it becomes so important to seperate religion and politics. Most religions actually recognise this fact, some actually place the people before the diety as does many peoples personal faiths.
What religions? What religions don't attempt to supply/support any kind of beliefs or exert any political power?
I think you're confusing the separation of State and Church (an artefact of peculiar circumstances in Western Europe) with separation of Politics and Religion (nonsensical, unless you have some other definition of politics and religion). Again, I've never seen Churches that, as a whole, supported the separation when they weren't compelled to by political circumstances (surely that would be abandoning your duty?).
Place the people before the deity? What do you mean? This sounds like a phrase that would be nonsensical both to someone who believes in the divine (surely it's not possible to place God above the people, in the sense that serving God is the best and greatest service to your people (the good ones, at least) or someone who doesn't (if God doesn't exist it makes no sense to say you're placing the "people" (dangerously nebulous entity - not so very different from "God") above or below him).
Religion and politics are very closely intertwined and there is naturally some "cross over", but at their heart they are very distinct and seperate entities.
How so? Politics is the study of human social interaction. Religion is a specific form of human social interaction. The study of religion is a subset of the study of politics. There is politics which is not obviously religious, but there is not religion which is not obviously political.
Religion should drive people to act religiously not politically, politics should drive people to act politically not religiously.
Meaning?
My religion guides me, but my faith drives me... if I have no religion then it is still my beliefs (my faith) that drives everything that I say and do. Everytime I interact with another it is my faith that shapes how I behave and what I say, thus it is my faith that I share through these interactions not my religion.
See previous comments on "faith" as "belief". Why use the word "faith" at all if you just mean "beliefs"? I don't see a great deal of use in the word "religion" if it doesn't resolve to socio-political grouping of people who hold the same beliefs (obviously that is a branching definition - you can talk about the Christian religion (all Christians share some core beliefs - I'd guess about Christ), the Protestant religion, the Evangelical Protestant religion ... - as you descend the branches people hold more beliefs in common).
As for culture (here we go again with the catagorising groups), I am of the same culture as you, those in westminster, the people in town, my next door neighbour, yet still my opinions are not always the same as theirs because my beliefs and my opinions are mine informed by my faith.
And yet you seem to share your beliefs/opinions with your subculture. Hence I don't think they are yours, in the sense of flowing uniquely from you, but received opinions.
Thus faith is the bedrock of my individual actions, not those of my culture or my religion, and again it is that which I share by my interactions with others.
Boiling it down - you act on your beliefs (more or less by definition) - you seem to reject the link between you having certain beliefs in common with lots of other people and thus forming a subculture which influences your actions and how they are perceived by others.
No, I'm defining my faith by what I believe in... nothing more, nothing less.
Ok "faith" = "belief". Why use the word "faith" then?
Oh, and if you look at faith and religion throughout time, not just the impact of catholisism over 1500 years then you would understand that my views are far from contemporary.
What are your views?
Yes, very confrontational... precisely my point that religion is confrontational whereas faith is not necessarilly so (tale of the good samariton).
So Jesus doesn't/didn't have faith, but you do? Or are you just saying that people can have beliefs but absolutely no inclination to propagate them (which seems to be largely refuted by even the basic, uncontroversial sociology - most people don't like cognitive dissonance and like to share their beliefs freely with their peers).
However, this is bit of your post is largely irrelevant as you seem to have assumed that I am christian or catholic or some such... I'm not.
Not particularly, but as an ardent non-believer I'd say Jesus is a reasonable first stop if you want to try to get a handle on "faith". If you want to define words differently, that's fine but it helps to have a shared vocabulary.
Marios
|
|
| |