easyrider16 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '24, 10:18
But this is the history of the Christian church. Rome became a theocracy, and then the various monarchies of medieval Europe were basically Christian theocracies and did things like the inquisition and the crusades, and the oppression of Christian theocracy didn't really end until the enlightenment era. It's funny to me when Christians criticize theocracies like Iran and Afghanistan, not because they aren't evil, but because their own religion has just as sordid a history and is guilty of the same sorts of abuses. Sharia law isn't really all that different from what Christians were doing in the name of Christ during medieval times.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Apr 23rd, '24, 10:18
But this is the history of the Christian church. Rome became a theocracy, and then the various monarchies of medieval Europe were basically Christian theocracies and did things like the inquisition and the crusades, and the oppression of Christian theocracy didn't really end until the enlightenment era. It's funny to me when Christians criticize theocracies like Iran and Afghanistan, not because they aren't evil, but because their own religion has just as sordid a history and is guilty of the same sorts of abuses. Sharia law isn't really all that different from what Christians were doing in the name of Christ during medieval times.
You're not wrong
But you miss the fact that Christians today are much different, while countries like Iran and Afghanistan are still in the dark ages with their religion.
Is it the Christians who are different? Or is it a society that has moved away from religion to a large extent and refuses to tolerate theocracy? The phrase "separation of church and state" was first written by a founding father - and for good reason.
I know quite a few Christians in today's world that would happily impose their own version of Sharia law on the populace of they were allowed. You might not, just like there are many decent and peaceful Muslims who live in places like Iran. But if you put any religion in control of government, you get what you saw in the middle ages and what you see today in Iran and Afghanistan. The flavor of religion doesn't matter - the outcome is the same. That's the lesson of history.
Islam needs a "Reformation" just as the Christianity went through several hundred years ago. With Islam being about 500 years younger than Christianity, however, I just hope we don't have to wait another couple of hundred years for an Islamic reformation to take place.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I don't think there's anything unique to Islam that makes it much different than Christianity in terms of the potential for oppressive regimes. The Catholic reformation took place in the 1500's, but horrible oppression like the Spanish Inquisition continued well into the 1800's. What brought about real change was when people decided they wouldn't tolerate theocracy and that church and state should be separate - a product of the enlightenment. I guess you could argue that the enlightenment was an outgrowth of the reformation, but I think the real change didn't happen until society decided to become more secular by focusing on science rather than religion to explain the nature of the world.
My opinion is that what the Muslim world needs is an "enlightenment" - a turn away from their religion and toward science and secular government. It's happening slowly in some places, like Indonesia and Malaysia. It's difficult though because like the Christians before them, the leaders of Muslim countries use their religion to try to solidify their power base. The religious right are still trying to use this tool today in the U.S.A. There's no better tool of oppression than convincing people that God wants things to be the way they are.
Quite frankly, I have little understanding how any rational person squares their beliefs with ANY organized religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, you name it.
I can square with Agnosticism only.
I don't mean to offend others who are religious and I can respect the value that faith can bring personally (I pray myself), but following any organized religion you were either raised to believe or have chosen out of personal exploration will never make sense to me and historically has caused so many problems globally.
DHS you make a lot of sense on this topic. I'll go a little further...I believe it's all BS like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. The Christian right is the biggest threat to America in our time.
I think there are pieces of truth to be found in religion, but I see it more like philosophy than anything else. The notions of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor, nonviolence and respect for all living things, etc. I think are ideas that have merit. I think all the religions and moral systems are grasping at the same thing - a trait that evolved in mankind that us to cooperate with each other - empathy.
The world has achieved far more when people worked together than when people tried to oppress one another. One of the reasons the Western world today is so much wealthier and more advanced than the rest of the world is a system that encourages people to work together freely and peacefully and that (for the most part) punishes people who try to harm others. To the extent religion reinforces this notion of empathy, I think it has value. But history teaches us that people use religion to try to control one another, and because of that it often teaches just as much hatred as it does empathy.
While there are many positive messages about empathy, kindness and working together with your fellow man in all religions, my problem with almost all of them is that they utilize either the reward of heaven or the threat of hell to motivate people to comply.
You should not need those motivations to be a good person and neighbor.
Beyond that a very high percentage of religious people try to force their beliefs on others. I have a big problem with that. Your religion does not prohibit me from anything. It prohibits you.
If there was no religion, the BS going on in the Middle East and elsewhere right now would not be happening. There would still be wars over the control of resources and likely always will be. But not wars about differences in religious beliefs.
Ultimately I view religion is a human construct invented to control people.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Apr 24th, '24, 20:06
While there are many positive messages about empathy, kindness and working together with your fellow man in all religions, my problem with almost all of them is that they utilize either the reward of heaven or the threat of hell to motivate people to comply.
You should not need those motivations to be a good person and neighbor.
Beyond that a very high percentage of religious people try to force their beliefs on others. I have a big problem with that. Your religion does not prohibit me from anything. It prohibits you.
If there was no religion, the BS going on in the Middle East and elsewhere right now would not be happening. There would still be wars over the control of resources and likely always will be. But not wars about differences in religious beliefs.
Ultimately I view religion is a human construct invented to control people.
Judaism has little to none of your concerns.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Expand upon what you mean Bubba. Jews live in perfect harmony with anyone no matter what their backgrounds and beliefs are?
I think back to my first serious girlfriend. She was Jewish. It was a year being made felt uncomfortable because the family didn't tolerate her dating a goy. They wouldn't even entertain the idea of me converting to Judaism; not that I would have or have anything to convert from. My Catholic parents tired of the negatives and left the religion before I was born. They wanted her with someone from Jewish lineage only. How asisine is that? It would be like me refusing to date anyone without Irish lineage.
Eventually she broke up with me and she married a proper Jew.
I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that religion, all of them, continues to be one of the greatest sources of division and intolerance between humans throughout history. The positives simply don't negate that reality. Nevermind it's persistent use in many places to brainwash and control.
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 24th, '24, 21:49
Judaism has little to none of your concerns.
Same could be said for Tibetan Buddhism.
I think all religions are highly susceptible to being used to control people. I don't think that's why they were invented, or what they're supposed to be about, but I think that's what ends up happening when bad actors see the potential of people to literally turn off their brains and follow the leader when it comes to religion.
I think religion started the way philosophy and even science did - as a search for truth. And I think it found some truths. But I also think it has often been hijacked and used to control people. It's history's lesson to us - religion should never be in the driver's seat, and when someone tries to tell you what to do based on religion, you should be extremely skeptical. Religion should be treated like philosophy - something important and pleasurable to study in one's spare time to search for meaning and your place in life. But that's where it should stay, out of public and professional life, and one should never just accept anything uncritically, even if a religious teacher or holy book says it.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Apr 24th, '24, 12:50
I think there are pieces of truth to be found in religion, but I see it more like philosophy than anything else. The notions of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor, nonviolence and respect for all living things, etc. I think are ideas that have merit. I think all the religions and moral systems are grasping at the same thing - a trait that evolved in mankind that us to cooperate with each other - empathy.
The world has achieved far more when people worked together than when people tried to oppress one another. One of the reasons the Western world today is so much wealthier and more advanced than the rest of the world is a system that encourages people to work together freely and peacefully and that (for the most part) punishes people who try to harm others. To the extent religion reinforces this notion of empathy, I think it has value. But history teaches us that people use religion to try to control one another, and because of that it often teaches just as much hatred as it does empathy.
Those are values that make sense. You don't have to believe in some invisible guy in the sky to have a moral compass.
G-smashed wrote: ↑Apr 25th, '24, 06:39
You don't have to believe in some invisible guy in the sky to have a moral compass.
Absolutely agree. One of the core tenets of Buddhism is that when we treat other people poorly, it causes suffering in our own being, thus we have a self-interested reason for treating other people with respect and dignity. This notion also tends to square with the findings of modern psychology. If you delete all the BS spiritual crap like reincarnation and nirvana etc., this is a pretty sound secular reason for having a moral compass. But one could argue perhaps that religion was a stepping-stone to discovering this truth.
Back on topic to the demise of the Republican party, this here is why a two-party system sucks so much. Here you have a former attorney general who criticized Trump for false claims of voter fraud, which seriously undermines our system, yet he thinks Biden is somehow worse. This isn't rational, it's tribal.
In an interview earlier this month with Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Barr was asked directly if he’d support Trump despite having past “disagreements” with him.
“I’ve said all along, given two bad choices, I think it’s my duty to pick the person I think would do the least harm to the country. And in my mind, I will vote the Republican ticket,” he said, adding that “Trump may be playing Russian roulette, but a continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide in my opinion.”
Trump was apparently thrilled at his opportunity to gloat upon seeing Barr’s comments.
“Wow! Former A.G. Bill Barr, who let a lot of great people down by not investigating Voter Fraud in our Country, has just Endorsed me for President despite the fact that I called him ‘Weak, Slow Moving, Lethargic, Gutless, and Lazy’ (New York Post!),” he wrote on Truth Social late Wednesday.
