Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by witchfinder Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:48 am

The best way forward is to be a Humanist, which basicly involves treating other humans as you would like to be treated yourself, but if someone happens to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, then accept that it is of their own free will and choice to believe in what they wish, and respect their choice.

To adherents of any faith, I would say that I respect your faith just as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me, or upon society.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

by Penderyn Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:28 pm

astra wrote:
The British were never regarded as Celts until the Eighteenth Century.

The British/English have NEVER taken anything to do with Scottish/Welsh/Irish tradition and have ever proscribed it's identity since the C18.

Wishing the line I gave was Picts and Druids (or would you pick a scab out of that as well.

Picts is a Roman description for Northern British people, meaning they painted or tattooed themselves, while druids presumably existed. To get this 'Celtic' stuff clear, the British and Irish peoples spoke languages later (never by them), called 'Celtic', in the same way that the people of Jamaica speak a Germanic language (English)now. Are the Jamaicans Germans? Neither were the British and Irish 'Celts' - they were British and Irish.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:14 pm

"the British and Irish peoples spoke languages later (never by them), called 'Celtic'"

What did they call the language(s) they spoke?

by Penderyn Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:"the British and Irish peoples spoke languages later (never by them), called 'Celtic'"

What did they call the language(s) they spoke?

Breithoneg and Gailighe (or something of that sort) probably. Why?

by LWS Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:15 pm

witchfinder wrote:The best way forward is to be a Humanist, which basicly involves treating other humans as you would like to be treated yourself, but if someone happens to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, then accept that it is of their own free will and choice to believe in what they wish, and respect their choice.

To adherents of any faith, I would say that I respect your faith just as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me, or upon society.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

This is a very interesting concept and one I studied earlier in my career as a psychologist. Humanism is essentially a person-centred approach and yes it does involve treating others as you would wish to be yourself. People are treated as holistic entities, capable of creating personal meaning, whilst exercising free will to embrace the spiritual dimension towards their life. This comprises the 'Gerstalt' pyschological stance that means we can see the world in terms of patterns or parts of patterns, depending upon our awareness. The same imagery can mean different things, taking the form of a vase that in sillouette looks like two faces for example. I could whitter on, but this is the gist of the understanding of the humanistic stance.

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:17 pm

"or something of the sort, probably"

Why indeed.

by Stox 16 Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:21 am

LWS wrote:
witchfinder wrote:The best way forward is to be a Humanist, which basicly involves treating other humans as you would like to be treated yourself, but if someone happens to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, then accept that it is of their own free will and choice to believe in what they wish, and respect their choice.

To adherents of any faith, I would say that I respect your faith just as long as you do not attempt to force your beliefs upon me, or upon society.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

This is a very interesting concept and one I studied earlier in my career as a psychologist. Humanism is essentially a person-centred approach and yes it does involve treating others as you would wish to be yourself. People are treated as holistic entities, capable of creating personal meaning, whilst exercising free will to embrace the spiritual dimension towards their life. This comprises the 'Gerstalt' pyschological stance that means we can see the world in terms of patterns or parts of patterns, depending upon our awareness. The same imagery can mean different things, taking the form of a vase that in sillouette looks like two faces for example. I could whitter on, but this is the gist of the understanding of the humanistic stance.

a interesting reply this LWS. so would you class this as a Religion or not first of all?

by LWS Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:42 pm

Hi Stox,

My take on it is that Humanism is not in itself a religion. If you click on the website above you will see that it refers to humanists as atheists and agnostics. I suppose in the absence of religion, people need to believe in something. I don't necessarily agree that the two stances are mutually incompatible and that you could be religious and be a humanist at the same time. No doubt that some would disagree.

My learning is from a pyschological stance however. Maslow who is acknowledged as the 'father of humanistic psychology and considered the view that pyschology up to that point tended to view people as 'ratamorphic' in that they are viewed as laboratory rats in studies. Maslow's view embraced a 'hierarchy of needs' and if you looked at things as a triangle with the physiological (the biological acts of breathing eating etc) at the base as that underpins the human state and self-actualisation at the top which comprises the thinking, creative side at the top.

See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

My view is that is essentially how the brain works and that people have three basic brains in one - its far more complex than this basic concept in reality though! At the base you have have the hind or reptillian brain that controls the basic acts of life support (breathing, heart beat etc), the mid brain or limbic (memory and other processes) and the cerebral cortex (especially the frontal) which is the part that really makes us human and is more developed than animals ones are. The frontal part processes the creative aspects and the higher thinking parts. It is there that our emotions stem from and also our belief systems including humanism and religion.

The humanistic approach to psychology and psychoanalysis has a critique in that, it is considered too 'touchy and feely' and exemplifies our soft skills side and so lacks theoretical and structural rigour. So it is not without controversy.

So to cap this discussion off, the humanistic approach is not in itself a religion, but has connotations to religion.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:06 am

LWS wrote:Hi Stox,

My take on it is that Humanism is not in itself a religion. If you click on the website above you will see that it refers to humanists as atheists and agnostics. I suppose in the absence of religion, people need to believe in something. I don't necessarily agree that the two stances are mutually incompatible and that you could be religious and be a humanist at the same time. No doubt that some would disagree.

My learning is from a pyschological stance however. Maslow who is acknowledged as the 'father of humanistic psychology and considered the view that pyschology up to that point tended to view people as 'ratamorphic' in that they are viewed as laboratory rats in studies. Maslow's view embraced a 'hierarchy of needs' and if you looked at things as a triangle with the physiological (the biological acts of breathing eating etc) at the base as that underpins the human state and self-actualisation at the top which comprises the thinking, creative side at the top.

See link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

My view is that is essentially how the brain works and that people have three basic brains in one - its far more complex than this basic concept in reality though! At the base you have have the hind or reptillian brain that controls the basic acts of life support (breathing, heart beat etc), the mid brain or limbic (memory and other processes) and the cerebral cortex (especially the frontal) which is the part that really makes us human and is more developed than animals ones are. The frontal part processes the creative aspects and the higher thinking parts. It is there that our emotions stem from and also our belief systems including humanism and religion.

The humanistic approach to psychology and psychoanalysis has a critique in that, it is considered too 'touchy and feely' and exemplifies our soft skills side and so lacks theoretical and structural rigour. So it is not without controversy.

So to cap this discussion off, the humanistic approach is not in itself a religion, but has connotations to religion.

A most interesting reply indeed. I too can see no clash between a humanism and being religious at all. as what we are debating here is the state of mind of the individual. as a humanism to me is a philosophy as you rightly point out. Thomas Garrigue Masaryk regarded democracy as both a political system and humanistic. so this could well be said of humanism and religious world are a good mix as well. However, Renaissance Humanism is neither a philosophy nor an ideology. as it has no fixed position towards religion. the state, or society, rather it was a cultural movement centred on protagonists held jobs primarily as teachers of grammar and literature. its my understanding LWS, that a Renaissance humanists reasserted the importance of the humanities against the overwhelming dominance of philosophy and science in medieval higher education. but then you have the Ideologically humanists. some of these were interested in philosophy. most were not. some become Protestants, others remained Catholic. yet I also understand there are others who could best be called Christian Humanists. but its a most interesting subject this LWS. as I would see myself as a person with no fixed position towards religion overall. So given all of this you would see yourself of a Christian humanists then?

by LWS Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:38 am

I don't see myself as being an humanist as such. It is a person-centred approach to life that doesn't particularly appeal. I see myself as a Christian foremost, however I could subcribe to other systems as well. One philosophical approach, I could identify with perhaps, is mindfullness which has its roots in Buddhism and entails contemplation and meditation. I see mediation as being analogus to extended prayer. Indeed monks in monastries shut themselves away to find an inner feeling through long periods of contemplation and prayer so that is mindfullness in practice. That is something I couldn't do myself obviously, but I do find myself spending quite long periods of time thinking about various things, not necessarily religious. What do you think?

by Penderyn Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:43 am

I think that what is attractive about most religions is not the dubious notions about the universe and everything they embody but the idea that our lives might matter. People with large egos don't need this, obviously, but for most of us it is a perpetual attraction.

by whitbyforklift Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:14 pm

[b]Life long atheist W C Fields,on his deathbed was reading the Bible.
When asked why,he replied "looking for loopholes dear boy,looking for loopholes".

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:46 pm

whitbyforklift wrote:[b]Life long atheist W C Fields,on his deathbed was reading the Bible.
When asked why,he replied "looking for loopholes dear boy,looking for loopholes".

That is very funny and I did enjoy that.

by Shirina Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:31 pm

I think that what is attractive about most religions is not the dubious notions about the universe and everything they embody but the idea that our lives might matter.

I've always thought this concept to be utterly mind-boggling. Of course my life matters. It matters to me. I'm also certain that it matters to my parents, my grandparents, my close friends - and should I ever have any children, I am confident that my life will matter to them, as well. My life also matters to those I have been able to help in whatever small way. I remember giving away a cheap entertainment stand to a poor person in the complex. When I said he could have it, his eyes lit up like a child's at Christmas. He exclaimed, "It's beautiful!" as if I had just given him the crown jewels of England. I'm sure my life mattered then - even if only for a short time.

Who else does my life have to matter to? And why should I care? Perhaps a person with far more resources, far more power, could have his or her life matter more to an even greater number of people. Yet I am neither powerful nor a woman of means, and I doubt I will ever be either. I am content in knowing that I do what I can to enrich the lives of those close to me, and in that way, my life begins to define its own meaning.

The need for some external vindication from an intensely demanding "father figure" God just ... doesn't make much sense to me. As a result of this need for perceived purpose, far too many Christians have spent too much time trying to appease a god than they do trying to bring joy, peace, fun, and humor to those around them. God, after all, comes first - not your friends and family.

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:02 pm

The problem with all human religion is that there are too many intermediaries.

by **Ivan** Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Shirina wrote:
Who else does my life have to matter to?

For a start, your admirers on this forum. Those who appreciate your excellent postings, and those of us who are extremely grateful for the help you have given me in building up this forum from scratch, just as you did with the old one at ProBoards.

by ROB Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:58 pm

Shirina wrote:
Who else does my life have to matter to?

Me.

Shirina wrote:
And why should I care?

I don't know. Your life matters to me, period.

by Penderyn Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:50 pm

Shirina wrote:
I think that what is attractive about most religions is not the dubious notions about the universe and everything they embody but the idea that our lives might matter.
I've always thought this concept to be utterly mind-boggling. Of course my life matters. It matters to me. I'm also certain that it matters to my parents, my grandparents, my close friends - and should I ever have any children, I am confident that my life will matter to them, as well. My life also matters to those I have been able to help in whatever small way. I remember giving away a cheap entertainment stand to a poor person in the complex. When I said he could have it, his eyes lit up like a child's at Christmas. He exclaimed, "It's beautiful!" as if I had just given him the crown jewels of England. I'm sure my life mattered then - even if only for a short time.

Who else does my life have to matter to? And why should I care? Perhaps a person with far more resources, far more power, could have his or her life matter more to an even greater number of people. Yet I am neither powerful nor a woman of means, and I doubt I will ever be either. I am content in knowing that I do what I can to enrich the lives of those close to me, and in that way, my life begins to define its own meaning.

The need for some external vindication from an intensely demanding "father figure" God just ... doesn't make much sense to me. As a result of this need for perceived purpose, far too many Christians have spent too much time trying to appease a god than they do trying to bring joy, peace, fun, and humor to those around them. God, after all, comes first - not your friends and family.

Lucky old you then. Enjoy!

by Shirina Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:46 pm

For a start, your admirers on this forum. Those who appreciate your excellent postings, and those of us who are extremely grateful for the help you have given me in building up this forum from scratch, just as you did with the old one at ProBoards.

I don't know. Your life matters to me, period.

Well, I do consider you both close friends - as much as we can be via the internet. That became apparent when I realized that if I were suddenly unable to speak to you, I would miss you - the same as any friend, even "real life" friends.

by whitbyforklift Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:57 pm

Shirina wrote:
For a start, your admirers on this forum. Those who appreciate your excellent postings, and those of us who are extremely grateful for the help you have given me in building up this forum from scratch, just as you did with the old one at ProBoards.
I don't know. Your life matters to me, period.
Well, I do consider you both close friends - as much as we can be via the internet. That became apparent when I realized that if I were suddenly unable to speak to you, I would miss you - the same as any friend, even "real life" friends.

What you say there Shirina reminds of something a radio ham said to me years ago from Germany.
Strangers are friends who have not met yet.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:45 pm

Very good whitbyforklift

Sounds like the kind of thing that our dearly departed friend and well known radio amateur "Mr Easton" would have said.

by **Ivan** Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:27 pm

"Why religion matters in US politics"

Extracts from an article by Joe Wade:-

Mitt Romney, the man likely to challenge Barack Obama to become president of the country with the most nuclear weapons, believes that in 1827 an angel called Moroni gave Joseph Smith some golden plates that had symbols on them. There must have been at least a full dinner service worth of mystical crockery because the translations filled up a whole new Bible called the Book of Mormon. Half of Mormons surveyed believe that Romney's faith is likely to count against him, with a third also believing they are more discriminated against than African Americans. Mitt's beliefs would count against him even more this side of The Pond. Tony Blair had to wait until he resigned as Prime Minister before converting to Catholicism because his spin master Alastair Campbell had commanded: "We don't do religion”.

Dubya Bush, the reformed coke-head alcoholic trumpeting his conversion and born again-ness, only really got in because of the religious right in America who backed his conversion at the ballot box. Blair has since admitted religion played a huge part in his premiership but didn't want voters to think he was a "nutter". In a 2007 Tearfund survey only 7% of Brits consider themselves practising Christians.

Romney's religion would be an asset, like Dubya's was, were it not for the oddness of some of the actions and beliefs of the Mormons, like their history of polygamy. They're anti-gay, only allowed black priests in 1978 and have done baptisms for the dead, including 300,000 holocaust victims. What's worse, they're teetotal, don't even drink coffee or tea and intriguingly wear 'religious undergarments'.

For the full article:-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/dont-panic/why-religion-matters-us-politics-174612868.html

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:36 pm

With so many people desperate for reassurance that THEIR religion is the right one, is it any wonder that there are so many threads like this?

The evidence is that some posters can't even believe in themselves.

by Shirina Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:59 pm

The evidence is that some posters can't even believe in themselves.

If people believed in themselves, we wouldn't even need religion.

by ROB Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:41 pm

Extracts from an article by Joe Wade:-

I’ve several issues with this article.

Dubya Bush, the reformed coke-head alcoholic trumpeting his conversion and born again-ness, only really got in because of the religious right in America who backed his conversion at the ballot box.

Starting at the low end of the totem pole, I find this author’s references to President George Walker Bush (“Dubya Bush, the reformed coke-head alcoholic trumpeting his conversion and born again-ness”) disrespectful of the office and the man. This disrespect of President Bush has migrated to even greater disrespect of President Barack Hussein Obama Jr., who has been called “Muslim/Christian (follower of Jeremiah Wright)/Communist in the same breath by the same persons regardless of the fact that being Muslim preludes being Christian or Communist, being Christian preludes being Muslim or Communist, and being Communist precludes being Muslim or Christian. And let’s not mention the disrespectful, despicable, disgusting “nicks” that have become attacked to Obama.

In fact, neither those who disrespect the former office and person of George Walker Bush nor those who disrespect the current office and person of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. overwhelmed the political landscape of America with disrespect of William Jefferson Clinton, who lied under oath during a legal deposition, and in so doing disrespecting the laws of America to such an extent that he has been permanently disbarred.

My country’s political landscape, shaped by disrespect of the office of President of the United States from the left and disrespect of the office of President of the United States from the right, has become ugly. I disrespect all who have planted the seeds and harvested the rotting crop, regardless of their ideological and/or party label.

United States Senator John Sydney McCain III said to a supporter who dared to publicly disrespect United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. in his presence, “Senator Obama is a man with whom I often disagree but always respect.” When and if this sentiment again becomes the norm in my country, America will be a better place.

… only really got in because of the religious right in America who backed his conversion at the ballot box.

Going up the totem pole, I’m not “religious right”, I didn’t back “his conversion at the ballot box”, and I intensely detest those who proclaim by their own holy edict my reasons for voting as I choose to vote, particularly those who do so without asking me.

Mitt Romney… believes that in 1827 an angel called Moroni gave Joseph Smith some golden plates that had symbols on them. There must have been at least a full dinner service worth of mystical crockery because the translations filled up a whole new Bible called the Book of Mormon.

Continuing up the totem pole, this semi-sarcastic take of Romney’s religion serves to obscure the very real threat, in my opinion, that Romney’s adherence to this religion might portend.

The author’s facts are correct; his tone is severely off the mark.

Romney's religion would be an asset, like Dubya's was, were it not for the oddness of some of the actions and beliefs of the Mormons, like their history of polygamy. They're anti-gay, only allowed black priests in 1978 and have done baptisms for the dead, including 300,000 holocaust victims. What's worse, they're teetotal, don't even drink coffee or tea and intriguingly wear 'religious undergarments'.

At the top of the totem pole, once again the author obscures the pertinent facts with triviality. I don’t drink (I used to drink occasionally), by choice, a choice that belongs to me, and I neither baptize Holocaust victims nor covertly apologize for a century and a half of characterizing Black folks as second class non-citizen servants on earth and in heaven.

Facts that scream for serious attention obscured by subtle sarcasm regarding intake of liquids and underwear.

For the full article:-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/dont-panic/why-religion-matters-us-politics-174612868.html

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:18 pm

There's MORE?

by **Ivan** Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Rock. The office of USA President may deserve respect, but George W. Bush certainly doesn’t. I remember receiving a Christmas card from an American in 2000 which said: “The serial killer from Texas is on his way to the White House next month, even though he lost the election to Al Gore.” Bush has something in common with both David Cameron and Prince Charles (and as we know, the Bush, Windsor and bin Laden families are great friends) - they all got where they are entirely through inheritance. Bush is a rich knucklehead from a degenerate family which created its vast wealth from trading with, and money laundering for, the Nazis. Bush is so stupid that in one of the 2004 debates with Kerry he needed prompting, you could see the wires on his back. At one point he said “let me finish” - yet nobody involved in the debate was interrupting him!

Cameron is a very rich descendant of the bastard line of William IV, but just as thick as Bush, not knowing the difference between prostate and prostrate, announcing that the USA was in WWII in 1940, and employing a Foreign Secretary who assured the world that Gaddafi was on his way to Venezuela last March. It’s no wonder that Barack Obama referred to Cameron as “a lightweight”. Prince Charles is so dull, useless and incompetent (he needs a servant to put toothpaste on his toothbrush) that he would be hard-pressed to hold down a job as a street cleaner (always assuming there are any such jobs left after Osborne’s cuts).

It’s strange how an article can provoke such differing responses. What Joe Wade has written almost makes me feel sorry for Mitt Romney. After all, how does Joseph Smith’s fairy story about angels and plates really differ from Moses popping up Mount Sinai for his job description? The similarities continue: Moses led the Israelites into Palestine, while Brigham Young took the Mormons to Utah, and neither place was exactly a land of milk and honey. Why do people go on about an ancient Mormon tradition of polygamy (outlawed in 1890), when so many Moslem men have four wives today? Why is the baptism of the dead any more or less absurd than believing in the resurrection of the dead, or believing that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse? Mormons are anti-gay, but so are very many Christians and virtually all Moslems, with homosexuality being a capital offence in countries such as Iran.

Why is Romney’s “adherence to this religion” any more of a threat than the beliefs of a Christian candidate for President? Both believe things which there is no logical reason to believe. The only real difference is that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are considered mainstream, have more followers and have been around longer than ‘newer’ religions such as Mormonism. The writer Will Self once said how frightened he was by the prospect of having a Catholic Prime Minister in the UK, of being governed by someone who thinks that he’s actually eating Christ’s flesh when he takes communion. The real danger is having a believer of any faith in high office, because as Voltaire put it: ”Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” - just as the Christian convert Bush persuaded the American people that invading Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

I’m not sure that Christianity and Communism have to be as mutually exclusive as you state. I have seen it argued that the early Christians were the first Communists, living by the second commandment ('Love your neighbour') and sharing their property: “No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had” (Acts 4:32). Perhaps that would make an interesting topic for another thread!

by ROB Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:08 pm

Ivan wrote:
The office of USA President may deserve respect, but George W. Bush certainly doesn’t.

I disagree.

The office definitely deserves respect (you and I don’t receive the daily security briefing every morning for three hundred sixty-five times four plus one (one leap year) straight days, from, for the current president) 21 January 2009 (George W. Bush was president the morning of the 20th) through (*projected) 20 January 2013.

I could continue in this vein, including in the continuance the number of days from 20 January 2009 through early May 2011 when some portion of the current president’s day included addressing the ongoing quest to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden like the rabid dog he was. I think the point is clear; you and I cannot imagine the intensity and stress of that job.

Because of that, anyone who attempts to faithfully discharge the duties of that job also deserves respect, regardless of (a) your personal assessment or my personal assessment of the person her/himself and/or (b) the person’s perceived and/or demonstrated competency in discharging the responsibilities of the job.

One more thing which we often forget: Every President of the United States becomes an instant and permanent target. In my lifetime, one president has been assassinated, two presidents have survived attempted assassination attempts uninjured, one president survive an assassination attempt with injuries (his press secretary was permanently disabled), one presidential candidate was assassinated, and one presidential candidate was permanently paralyzed from the waist down in an assassination attempt.

I ain’t volunteering for the job? Did I see your name on the list of applicants? If so, your courage exceeds mine.

That last statement may be a bit tongue in cheek, but this one isn’t. The Presidency of the United States “ain’t no bed of roses”, except for the thorns. I respect every president that has held the office in my lifetime except two, William Jefferson Clinton, who literally desecrated the oval office by using it as a cheap motel room (out of $200,000.00 per year, he could have paid for the Presidential Suite at Holiday Inn), and Richard Milhous Nixon, who tries to hijack my democracy. Neither of these persons respected the office (literally with William Jefferson, profoundly with Richard Milhous); thus, neither of these persons do I respect.

Ivan wrote:
I remember receiving a Christmas card from an American in 2000 which said: “The serial killer from Texas is on his way to the White House next month, even though he lost the election to Al Gore.”

Two erroneous statements: (1) George W. Bush was not and is not the “serial killer from Texas”, and (2) George W. Bush did nit lose the election to Al Gore.

Ivan wrote:
Bush has something in common with both David Cameron and Prince Charles (and as we know, the Bush, Windsor and bin Laden families are great friends)

“Sins of the father…”

Jesus cleared that up; I personally respect George W. Bush to the same degree that I personally distrust George H.W. Bush and abhor the ancestor (the name escapes me) who played footsie with the Nazis in pursuit of the Almighty Buck.

Ivan wrote:
… they all got where they are entirely through inheritance.

Can’t argue with that, but so did Jack, and so did Bobby, in whose second to last campaign I volunteered (Oregon, right before California, where he was assassinated), who, in my opinion, was the Greatest President That Never Was. Their father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., was, well…

Once again, “Sins of the father…”

Ivan wrote:
Cameron… announcing that the USA was in WWII in 1940…

Well… Al Gore invented the Internet (and here I thought it was DARPA), and Sarah Palin can see Russia from her front porch.

Ivan wrote:
… almost makes me feel sorry for Mitt Romney.

I have difficulty feeling sorry for a person who cannot publicly state that his chosen religion’s “Prophets” were despicably immoral for teaching that Black folks are second-class noncitizen servants (“slaves”) to White folks on earth and in heaven.

Ivan wrote:
After all, how does Joseph Smith’s fairy story about angels and plates really differ from Moses popping up Mount Sinai for his job description?

Moses was called by God (YHWH Elohim); Joseph Smith was called by Joseph Smith.

Ivan wrote:
Why is Romney’s “adherence to this religion” any more of a threat than the beliefs of a Christian candidate for President?

Why is Mitt Romney’s adherence to LDS any more of a threat than Barack Obama’s adherence to Christianity?

Why is Mitt Romney’s adherence to LDS any more of a threat than Barack Obama’s adherence to government under God?

Ivan wrote:
I’m not sure that Christianity and Communism have to be as mutually exclusive as you state.

I am sure. I read and studied the Communist Manifesto. I didn’t miss the part in which Marx states that communism views religion as the opiate of the masses. I doubt if Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or the Baha’i Faith are excluded from that sweeping condemnation.

Ivan wrote:
I have seen it argued that the early Christians were the first Communists, living by the second commandment ('Love your neighbour') and sharing their property: “No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had” (Acts 4:32).

You have seen it argued incorrectly.

1st Century Christians were taught by example to live as a family; specifically, the members of the ecclesia was to love one other, walking the talk, as members of one family, as brothers and sisters, and to love God “with all of your heart, soul, and mind, the first part of the tandem commandments of our Creator which Jesus affirmed on the same occasion as he confirmed that “the second is like unto it, that you love your neighbor as yourself.

Here it is:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

Jesus said unto him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

“And the second is like unto it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:35-40).
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Nothing about religion being the opiate of the masses; thus, nothing communist about it.

Ivan wrote:
Perhaps that would make an interesting topic for another thread!

Given the plethora of bad information prevalent in our world today about this subject, perhaps it would.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:17 pm

Looking possible Mitt Romney could lose out for the same reason as Al Capone.

by Shirina Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:19 pm

(and as we know, the Bush, Windsor and bin Laden families are great friends)

Don't forget that Prince Edward VIII was also a great friend of the Nazis, as well. After he abdicated the throne, he wanted to overthrow the British government and make Britain an ally of Hitler. The family name of Windsor is "made-up" by the way - it was taken from Windsor Castle. As a surname, it didn't exist until Edward adopted it. I wonder why the monarchy still uses it?

We did get a wonderful knot from him, though.

by Shirina Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:47 pm

I’m not sure that Christianity and Communism have to be as mutually exclusive as you state.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive, Ivan. Sorry, Rock.

The reason why communism is associated with atheism is all thanks to Stalin. As anyone who knows anything about Russian history knows, Stalin was extremely paranoid, meaning he was clinically diagnosed as having very real paranoia. Incidentally, the doctor who made that diagnosis later turned up dead. Stalin was especially paranoid of losing his power and demanded absolute loyalty. He killed or exiled anyone he imagined being a threat to him, even sending assassins all the way to South America to kill Leon Trotsky. He even killed one of his closest friends, Sergey Kirov, because he was too popular. The legendary Marshall Zhukov was more or less exiled after the Great Patriotic War. Oddly, this came to a head when Zhukov rode a white horse through Red Square - Stalin was jealous because he wanted to be the one riding the white horse. So it was bye-bye Zhukov.

Now, the reason why I point this out is to give a little insight to this madman who killed far more people than Hitler. Stalin did not want anyone serving two masters - God and Stalin. His paranoia and jealousy refused to allow religion to coexist with his rule. This had less to do with any fanatical atheist ideology and far more to do with Stalin's own fears and narcissism. In essence, Stalin wanted to replace God-worship with Stalin-worship. However, Stalin reversed that decision when the war was going badly for the Soviets - all the churches he closed down were allowed to reopen in the hopes that it would improve morale. By then, however, atheism and communism have been inextricably linked even though atheism was not truly at the heart of communism or even Stalin. However, communism being "Godless" was a wonderful propaganda tool during the Cold War to send the overly religious Americans into a tizzy of anti-communist sentiment. Therefore, that link has bee propagated for the last 60+ years

by ROB Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:57 am

Ivan wrote:
I’m not sure that Christianity and Communism have to be as mutually exclusive as you state. I have seen it argued that the early Christians were the first Communists, living by the second commandment ('Love your neighbour') and sharing their property: “No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had” (Acts 4:32).

Shirina wrote:
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, Ivan. Sorry, Rock.

Shirina, Ivan,

Communism and religion are mutually exclusive. This is neither my interpretation nor my opinion; this is indisputable fact, verifiable by the words of Karl Marx. Notice particularly the third quoted entry below, in which the quote attributed to Marx, “Religion is the opiate of the masses”, is exhibited in context.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

“Lenin and Marx both said that religion is the ‘opiate of the people.’” (Dr. David Livingston, Religion: an “Opiate of the People”? Retrieved 18 January 2012 from http://www.davelivingston.com/opiate.htm)
__________________________________________________________________________________________

“It is difficult to know what effect this would have on his later philosophy, but we do know that Marx would be antithetical to religious belief, at one time pronouncing it, ‘the opiate of the masses.’” (W.J. Rayment, A Biography of Karl Marx. Retrieved 18 January 2012 from http://www.indepthinfo.com/communist-manifesto/karl-marx.shtml)
__________________________________________________________________________________________

“Karl Marx (1818-1883) wrote in 1843: ‘It (religion-ed.) is the opium of the people.’ The quotation is often given as: ‘Religion is the opium/opiate of the masses/people’… The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added): ‘Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again… Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness… The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.’” (The Big Apple, Entry from February 08, 2010, “Communism is the opiate of the intellectuals”, Marx. Retrieved 18 January 2012 from http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/communism_is_the_opiate_of_the_intellectuals/)

by **Ivan** Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:18 pm

Rock. Your entire argument that Christianity and Communism are mutually exclusive seems to be based on one quote from Karl Marx. Firstly, Marx may have formed his opinion that “religion is the opiate of the masses” from what he saw going on around him in Europe in the mid-19th century.

Marx moved to London in 1849, and spent the rest of his life there. The year before, a pamphlet called ‘The Communist Manifesto’, which Marx and his friend Engels co-authored, was first published. It argued that all human history had been based on class struggles, but that these would ultimately disappear with the victory of the proletariat. I can’t see anything there that would prevent a Communist from being a Christian.

The hymn ‘All Things Bright And Beautiful’ was also published in 1848, and its third verse (which was banned by the Inner London Education Authority in 1982) reads:-
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate."
Perhaps that was the prevailing but unacceptable ethos which Marx had had in mind when he made his “opiate” remark in 1843?

Secondly, Marx doesn’t have the monopoly of Communism. Communism is a socio-economic structure that stands for the establishment of a classless, egalitarian and stateless society. It’s a political ideology that is based on a common ownership, mainly concerned with equality and fairness. In Communism, the power is vested in a group of people who decide the course of action. The government has complete control over the production and distribution of goods and all the resources, and the theory is that everything is shared in the society equally. What is there to say that a person who believes in such a system cannot also believe in Christianity if they so wish?

And then there is liberation theology. a movement which interprets Christ’s teachings in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. Liberation theology could be interpreted as a western attempt to return to the gospel of the early church, bearing in mind that Christ described his mission as “not to bring peace” (social order) but “a sword” (social unrest). That sounds quite revolutionary to me, and just the sort of thing that a Communist would approve of in the struggle between rich and poor.

by Penderyn Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:52 pm

Marx's notion of Christianity was German-philosophic, a substitute for political action in a tyranny, as music was a substitute for literature. My Old Man was eliminating that bit of All Things Bright and Beautiful before the War, and so were most educated parsons, I should think.

by **Ivan** Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:47 pm

Penderyn wrote:-
My Old Man was eliminating that bit of All Things Bright and Beautiful before the War, and so were most educated parsons, I should think.

Fair point, but if the Inner London Education Authority felt it necessary to ban it in 1982, it implies that someone might still have been using it!

by Penderyn Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:55 pm

Ivan wrote:
Penderyn wrote:-
My Old Man was eliminating that bit of All Things Bright and Beautiful before the War, and so were most educated parsons, I should think.
Fair point, but if the Inner London Education Authority felt it necessary to ban it in 1982, it implies that someone might still have been using it!

It was a socialist marker: both my father and my wife's father used to denouce it it frequently and violently. I'd guess the LEA were just doing the equivalent of abolishing serfdom for the press. But the depth of English tory archaism is more than I can understand, fair play.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:03 pm

SingalongaCameron
Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvel6cIoxzCb8iDhJQHRNTrEuptS98zUQf_pTfJfCADy5drHlz

(hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk)

Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRskv6YD0Aiz7Hd31IUSnIPM--wmpatQW7S2uoE9nKk73IG8WuU

Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRskv6YD0Aiz7Hd31IUSnIPM--wmpatQW7S2uoE9nKk73IG8WuU

" Tories bright and beautiful; all voters great and small
LibDem polls are terrible, but I care bugger all..."

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:27 pm

"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

-- Oscar Wilde

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:18 am

LWS wrote:I don't see myself as being an humanist as such. It is a person-centred approach to life that doesn't particularly appeal. I see myself as a Christian foremost, however I could subcribe to other systems as well. One philosophical approach, I could identify with perhaps, is mindfullness which has its roots in Buddhism and entails contemplation and meditation. I see mediation as being analogus to extended prayer. Indeed monks in monastries shut themselves away to find an inner feeling through long periods of contemplation and prayer so that is mindfullness in practice. That is something I couldn't do myself obviously, but I do find myself spending quite long periods of time thinking about various things, not necessarily religious. What do you think?

I can see where you are coming from LWS. I too spend a great deal of time in contemplation and thinking about many things. its sort of quite important too me to read and think about a whole range of issues. so that I can look at all sides of issues. Religious understanding does matter to me. as it plays a great part within whole areas of Society in General. as I have got older I find myself questioning much more about how we live or act within a community and inter act with each other. I am let say more clear in my view about say Right wing views on life and its effects it has on the general well being of a society and community we live in here within the UK. Also believe much more in the values of socialism and social care for those who cannot fight back for themselves for what ever reason. its a most interesting set of posts we have here LWS.

by weltschmerz Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:15 am

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, independent of any religion, law, or court decision.

If marriage is a union between a man and a woman, independent of any religion, law, or court decision, how is it any different from shacking up?

Hello everyone. Some of you may remember me from a distant time and place.

by Shirina Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:25 am

Hello, Weltsmerch ... it is a pleasure to see you here!

by Sponsored content