Elton: Religion Should Be Banned

[Trooth]

Every Defendant has the option of a Bench Trial, a 6-man jury, or 12-man jury. That is one of many freedom of choices we have.

No, it is not one of the choices we have. It is one of the choices that society has demanded because it does not have faith in each other.

Each one of us in practice is aware of our freedom and responsibility. It is easy enough to deny freedom of choice when we are theorizing, when we adopt the attitude of spectators. But just as is the case with morality, it is quite another thing to deny the reality of freedom when we are LIVING.

When we praise and blame others and when we recognize our own responsibility for our choices, we clearly show that we know we are not simply helpless victims in life. We are products of nature, but we are also responsible choosers.

Christian claim that human beings are that part of nature which reflects a reality deeper than nature. We can partially transcend nature because we are made in the image of the one who is totally transcendent of nature. We are creative beings with the power of free choice because we were made in the likeness of the person who created the whole of nature by a free choice.

This power of choice has also been used in evil ways. And in some ways this misuse of freedom diminishes and destroys freedom. If we continually give in to an evil impulse, eventually we lose the ability to resist at all, and our actions will produce their full consequences.

Christians believe that we are free beings who partially transcend nature, and nature contains something that transcends itself, something we would not expect nature to produce if nature existed "on its own." If human beings have been produced by natural processes, then those natural processes are evidently guided by a purposive design. If nature can produce something that transcends nature, then this says something surprising about nature.

The point is that besides the calling cards God has left in nature and in the moral order, he has left one fundamental clue to his reality, which gives every one of us who has any degree of self-knowledge a chance to discover him. That clue is ourselves.

The desire for ETERNAL LIFE is the most evident manifestation of the need for God. We all know we’re going to die, and death is the natural order of things, but deep in our hearts we feel death should not be.

In our most happy and treasured moments of love, we often feel something is missing. We find ourselves wanting more but not knowing what is the more we want. What we want is an eternal love, a love which loves us unconditionally, accepts us as we are, while helping us to become all we can become. Not merely a sloppy sentimental love which would gratify our whims and capricious urges.

When, for some reason, we are blind to the mysteries of the universe, we should still see the mystery of our own being. And when we are not reflective enough to see the mystery of our own being, we still ought to be able to see God in the deepest desires of our own heart. The hard part is not finding the clue, but deciding to TRUST what we find.

I was going to applaud your faith and the manner in which you have expressed it. However i can't because these are words that to me seem too closely related to http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth07.html.

The thread is not about whether or not God exists, nor is it about the rights and wrongs of faith. It is about whether or not organised religion does harm. I maintain it is about coordination of thought which has been (i shall be generous ) "abused" throughtout history and will continue to be.

[Julie]

Oh please….Taking too many trips through the McDonald’s drive-thru for those greasy fries will harm you. Too much of anything is abuse, don’t you understand that?

Our government has proven many times corrupt, but we still take ourselves to the voting booths, don’t we? Why? Because we have faith and trust in our system because we have the freedom of choice.

Bottom line is, you ban religion, you instill oppression. There is no faith found in oppression, and human beings are driven by faith, and by hope.

Now, if you don’t believe that, just look deep into the mindset of terrorist. Their motive is not religion, it is oppression. They have no faith, hope, nor trust in anyone, not even themselves.

Ask yourself this question? If terrorists were “organized,” would they be killing each other?

[brokensickle]

When your name is Trooth there is not much you don't know.

Oh please….Taking too many trips through the McDonald’s drive-thru for those greasy fries will harm you. Too much of anything is abuse, don’t you understand that?

Our government has proven many times corrupt, but we still take ourselves to the voting booths, don’t we? Why? Because we have faith and trust in our system because we have the freedom of choice.

Bottom line is, you ban religion, you instill oppression. There is no faith found in oppression, and human beings are driven by faith, and by hope.

Now, if you don’t believe that, just look deep into the mindset of terrorist. Their motive is not religion, it is oppression. They have no faith, hope, nor trust in anyone, not even themselves.

Ask yourself this question? If terrorists were “organized,” would they be killing each other?

Humility brings wisdom. Truth is the essense of reality.

[brokensickle]

Applauds don't add to or take away from the truth.

No, it is not one of the choices we have. It is one of the choices that society has demanded because it does not have faith in each other.



I was going to applaud your faith and the manner in which you have expressed it. However i can't because these are words that to me seem too closely related to http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth07.html.

The thread is not about whether or not God exists, nor is it about the rights and wrongs of faith. It is about whether or not organised religion does harm. I maintain it is about coordination of thought which has been (i shall be generous ) "abused" throughtout history and will continue to be.

How does organized religion of itself pose a threat to anybody? How are other nonreligious organizations exempt from being harmless? Is the trooth that you just have a hate for religion the main component here? Are you a youth as your posts indicate? You seem to be smart enough just a bit inexperience in what is really happening. Look humbly at the truth so you won,t feel threatened by it.

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ArmchairGeneral]

I can think of two gov'ts that banned religion in history. Well, one gov't, and one system of gov't. Revolutionary France (Reign of Terror, anyone?) and assorted Communist gov'ts ('nuff said). While correlation does not prove causation, especially when your population sample is only two, it does cause me to wonder.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Actually, it seems to me that for a Christian the real question is: does Christianity do more harm than good? Because any religion other than Christianity is not that much better than atheism. Sure, they may be closer to the truth, but it's quite possible that religion in general has caused more harm than good, while Christianity has done the opposite. If we, as followers of Christ, cannot look back at history and say, "Yes, we have been a force for good," then it seems to me we have a problem. Of course, the same applies to any religion, at least any religion that claims to have absolute truth.

As a Christian, I think I can count women's liberation, abolition of slavery, and the foundation of modern democracy as due in large part to Christian influence, through both thinkers and doers.

On the other hand, we have the Crusades (perhaps more maligned than deserved, but I would say on the whole they were a bad thing), the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, many other religious wars. I could say that the Inquisition was a result of corrupted Christianity, and that the 30 Years War was more politics than religion, but one cannot deny that they were both instigated by something at least partly Christian, however corrupted.

Which side wins? To be honest, I don't know. I shall continue to think about it, but as long as there is a possibility that Christianity comes out positive, I shall continue to choose following Christ over the alternatives. Because the alternatives are, frankly not very appealing to me. Some other religion, or atheism. Other religions seem either full of holes, or out of touch with reality, or simply odious. Atheism, while appealing in its simplicity, is also disturbing to me in its inability to give a firm moral base. I can accept the possibility of an amoral universe, but I don't like it. And as long as there is a reasonable alternative, I will choose it.

[gunnut]

When was the last war started in the name of Buddha?

[PubFather]

Actually, it seems to me that for a Christian the real question is: does Christianity do more harm than good? Because any religion other than Christianity is not that much better than atheism. Sure, they may be closer to the truth, but it's quite possible that religion in general has caused more harm than good, while Christianity has done the opposite. If we, as followers of Christ, cannot look back at history and say, "Yes, we have been a force for good," then it seems to me we have a problem. Of course, the same applies to any religion, at least any religion that claims to have absolute truth.

As a Christian, I think I can count women's liberation, abolition of slavery, and the foundation of modern democracy as due in large part to Christian influence, through both thinkers and doers.

Erm, lets not forget that Christianity justified and maintained the slave trade on the premise that it was bringing God's word to the heathen.
Let's not forget the role that Christianity played in the colonial period, where it was another justification for Imperial rule.
Christianity played a major role in the oppression of women throughout European history - there are lines of scripture quite clear that the role of women is secondary within the Church and by extension, within society as well. Women unable to be ministers or priests within Churches and reduced to auxillary role, sent the clear message that that was their role within society as a whole. Women labasted as the downfall of mankind from the outset. Old Testament teachings that women were little better than chattels.

On the other hand, we have the Crusades (perhaps more maligned than deserved, but I would say on the whole they were a bad thing), the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, many other religious wars. I could say that the Inquisition was a result of corrupted Christianity, and that the 30 Years War was more politics than religion, but one cannot deny that they were both instigated by something at least partly Christian, however corrupted.

You omit the anti-Jewish pogroms throughout medieval European history. You neglect to mention details of the "Liberation" of Jerusalem during the First Crusade. You also gloss over the witchcraft trials (Malleus Maleficarum anyone?). Not to mention the clear and present link between the Catholic church and it's attempt to cover up paedophilia.

Which side wins? To be honest, I don't know. I shall continue to think about it, but as long as there is a possibility that Christianity comes out positive, I shall continue to choose following Christ over the alternatives. Because the alternatives are, frankly not very appealing to me. Some other religion, or atheism. Other religions seem either full of holes, or out of touch with reality, or simply odious. Atheism, while appealing in its simplicity, is also disturbing to me in its inability to give a firm moral base. I can accept the possibility of an amoral universe, but I don't like it. And as long as there is a reasonable alternative, I will choose it.

No more full of holes than Christianity. The evident contradictions in the Bible. The Apocrypha - and how the Bible was assembled in the first place. It is no worse than other religions. It is certainly no better.

We con ourselves when we argue that, without religion, there can be no moral sense. Worse, with religion, we convince ourselves that our beliefs are innately superior to those of others. You create a world of believers and non-believers. Friends and outsiders. Good and evil. Them and us. It is this manichean world view that is what is so dangerous about religion.

I don't believe in banning organised religion. It doesnt stop me disliking the idea of it. And it doesnt stop me believing that there are good teachings within the Bible, or indeed the Qur'an or any other holy book.

[Julie]

Nothing is flawless people and very diversified.

We are all human, but different sexes and races. We are not all alike physically, nor mentally.

There is always room for improvement, and that goes with any invention, as well as human beings.

We strive for progression and improvement in everyone and everything. If mistakes were never made, there would be no room for improvement or reason for progression. To ban religion, would be defeat of all mankind.

Oppression of females, in any sense of the word, is very disrespectful since females are the primary source of sustaining human life. Without women, man could not remain in existence. Maybe we should make men more aware of that. ;)

[Kansas Bear]

Atheism, while appealing in its simplicity, is also disturbing to me in its inability to give a firm moral base. I can accept the possibility of an amoral universe, but I don't like it. And as long as there is a reasonable alternative, I will choose it.

Have you read Jean Paul Sartre?

[Trooth]

Oh please….Taking too many trips through the McDonald’s drive-thru for those greasy fries will harm you. Too much of anything is abuse, don’t you understand that?

What?

Our government has proven many times corrupt, but we still take ourselves to the voting booths, don’t we? Why? Because we have faith and trust in our system because we have the freedom of choice.

Earlier you posted that you had faith in your government as an example. I posted that you didn't which is why you have elections. So how would i not understand the above? I am glad you have seen clearly though.

Bottom line is, you ban religion, you instill oppression.

I personally don't want to ban religion. I would rather people woke up and saw it for the folly that it is. It is coordinated thought and that coordination is the bad thing. People follow blindly convinced by the charistmatic talker and before you know it you are basng your views based on "them", "they", "some". These undintified targets that are "clearly" sinful and beneath the rest of the gang <insert name of religion here>

There is no faith found in oppression, and human beings are driven by faith, and by hope.

I have already said that few people have faith in oppression. People are driven by many things. But faith is not a singular term. That is the point. If any minister utters the phrase "one true faith" he has fundamentally misunderstood and signed himself up to the coordination club.

Now, if you don’t believe that, just look deep into the mindset of terrorist.

I haven't ever met a terrorist that i know of. Have you - or did someone tell you what they think?

Their motive is not religion, it is oppression. They have no faith, hope, nor trust in anyone, not even themselves.

Ask yourself this question? If terrorists were “organized,” would they be killing each other?

Can't quite see where this fits in. I think its unlikely that you know what their faiths are, but you might have some exposure to their coordination.

However one man's terrorist has always been another's freedom figther and not all terrorists are motivated by spiritual matters. Some are just good old fashioned power crazed loons.

On topic, Elton John was saying that organised religion moulds people's minds against homsexuality. If you want a parallel this is akin to a preacher taking a young muslim and moulding him into a jihadi through coordinated thought. It is unlilkely that without external intervention said young man would become a bomber.

[Trooth]

How does organized religion of itself pose a threat to anybody?

Histroically the coordination of thought has posed great threats to a great many people. Religion is one of the coordinators of thought. History is littered with death, torture and other crimes motivated by religion. But i am arguing they are not motivated by faith.

How are other nonreligious organizations exempt from being harmless?

They are not. Just that this thread is about religion. McCarthy witch-hunts is a simple example of coordination of thought in a non-religious manner that was harmful. Nazism is a bigger one, but it is borderline as it was not far from becoming a religion itself.

Is the trooth that you just have a hate for religion the main component here?

I don't have a hate for religion. In general religious people are quite spiritual and in general some certainly have faith. The very real problem is when a religion is used to justify actions and oppression. It is an easy tool to weild. It is an easy horn to blow to rouse the masses.

Are you a youth as your posts indicate?

Why do they indicate that and what relevance has that one way or the other?

You seem to be smart enough just a bit inexperience in what is really happening.

What is really happening? Please do tell.

Look humbly at the truth so you won,t feel threatened by it.

I have no problem at all with any faith. I support you if you believe in 1 god. a dozen gods, no god, you don't know, or you believe that we are "all the result of a cosmic sneeze and are waiting for the second coming of the Great White Handkerchief" - Hitchhilkers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

The point is, if one is going to offer me advice as to how to live my life, do not justify it by the edited highlights of someone else's thoughts. One should either offer me the advice or not. But citing chapter and verse as precedant is nonsense.

If one is going to limit my liberties, do so based upon reasoned argument in this world and leave me to make my own way in another.

If one wants to amass a million people to a way of thinking. Convince them here and now, don't just threaten them with a trident up the **** for all eternity - because, and this is the bizarre thing, every single one of us on this planet is going to "hell" because we are all condemned by multiple religions regardless of how much we adhere to one.

[brokensickle]

You must be an anarchist.

Trooth,

Organization of thought is not evil. Your youthful exuberance is evident in your post, but don't let that exuberance overshadow your ability to see things in a clear and practical way.

I don't ask this in an judgmental way, you need not even answer, but I am compelled to ask if you use recreational drugs. Do you? The answer is for yourself. Drugs can Interfere with sound reasoning, and if you are using them you might abstain for a lengthy period of time so may see things in a clear view. If you aren't using drugs disreguard this part of the post.

And for me my largest question to you is what is oppressive about organized religion or for that matter organizations in general?

~~~~Ivan~~~><//>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[glyn]

May I ask why religion should be so organised and regulated?

[Parihaka]

Trooth,

Organization of thought is not evil.

You're making an invalid assumption that organisation of religious doctrine equates to thought.