Crispy said:
Much of this argument stems from political activism that is rejecting the religious right, adolescent intolerant "rationalism" that fails to accept other beliefs and faith over their view (sound familiar so far), and a general refusal to accept religion as an important part of world and american culture, history and society. This is what I reject.
Regardless of their motivation, the issue at hand is if the deluded majority can impose their beliefs on the rational minority. Morally, no, they should not be allowed to do so, and they should be opposed at every opportunity.
Crispy said:
I didn't say the reformation was peaceful. You've chosen though to only view those aspects of religious history such as the crusades, the inquisitions, and the violent uprising against the catholic church and don't acknowlege that it was the movement Luther started and went head to head against the catholic church with that set the precedent for the separation of church and state. It was also this movement that sought to place faith in the hands of the individual which radically altered the perception of how christianity and religion in general was practiced and gave rise to the notion of individual liberty. These principles developed themselves into what we now see as our religious and individual freedoms and rights and this as true as the violence of the middle ages that resulted from this movement.
The notion of individual liberty arose out of the reformation? There were these people called "greeks" that had some words to say about that.
All religions contain the seeds violence. They exploit unconscious instinctual motivations pertaining to fear and survival needs. By their nature they're violent. This is why peaceful religions fail.
Crispy said:
I can pick all of the negatives from history and formulate a bashing campaign against Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the rest of the ideological movements in history to discredit them too but then I put myself in the same narrow and un-insightful category as the rest of you and you know what that leads to?
Oh, don't worry about that, you just did. But don't include me in it. I'm neither narrow nor uninsightful. That's for the dishonest people.
Crispy said:
So would you say the original population of this country was secular? Considering that amoung the first buildings errected in new towns, without exception, were churches, the idea that they weren't "sacred" (or perhaps you'd prefer the term "devoutly religious") is just ignoring the type of people that inhabited this country in its early years. You'd be hard pressed to find a wealth of Atheists in American history. This country was founded by Bugeouis elite and europeans seeking freedoms and opportunity, most of who were Christian, many persecuted as christians. Because their were economic motivations does not remove the religious motivations or role that it played in american's lives.
No, this country was founded by people seeking the freedom to impose their own religious strait-jackets on society. It was the secular avarice of man that built the country to what it is.
People moved to places to make a living first, then to practice their delusions second. Guaranteed that before they found a spot to build a chuch they already knew where the farmhouses were going to be and who would have which parts.
Crispy said:
The Dark ages in western europe were a product of many more phenomena than just religion and this point doesn't refute or negate the religious beliefs of those who migrated to america. Nor does the advances in Western Civilization directly apply to my points. I understand and appreciate what secularization has accomplished and never said I didn't. I've just chosen to include those positive elements of various Ideologies as well which you have chosen not to do.
You brought in the Middle Ages, not me. If you wish to dismantle your argument now, I won't stop you.
Crispy said:
Choosing to paint religion and ideology with such broad strokes does a dis-service to those who practice their ideologies for the good of all and serves to dimish their efforts and further isoloate antagonist and protaganist from each other.
Isolation is good. If we'd had enough isolation before September 11th, it's more than likely that our double phallus would still be standing, and 3000 people would mostly still be alive today.
Crispy said:
If you'd actually investigate the reasons why such movements had come to be instead of just seeing actions of certain groups of those movements and judging the ideology based on that, you might be able to see past the historical events which only provide a limited insight into what the movement and beliefs were about. In this sense you are as prejudiced to different Ideologies as many are against Islam, and many are against the west solely based on the actions of a certain few.
Oh, if it's a religious ideology, you can be certain that the leaders are expecting to make money off it, or to control the minds of the masses following them. Neither is good, and no one should become entangled in them.
The only ideology that doesn't require surrendering one's mind to the control of others is libertarianism, which basically says, go do what you want, go think what you want, go feel what you want, I don't care what you do so long as you don't hurt me or others.
Crispy said:
Your firm grasp of the obvious is outstanding. Before that Flag salesman wrote the poem, no, it didn't. Since its become the standard pledge, it has represented our country and its words have resonated in America with patriotic ferver.
Right, until that nonsense about God was forced into it, anyway.
But that whole poem thing should have been left in the realm of pop culture where the people can decide on it individually, not forced into federal law. The last edit was merely the turd on top of the compost heap.
Crispy said:
The problem I see in your stance and those rejectionists of religion and idealogy is that you place more weight on the idealogy than those who practice the ideology. My bubble was burst in college too when I saw the horrors brought on by movements that I had come to believe were benevolent and right but I also learned there after that both good and bad co-existed together in all of these facts. Is every Muslim a terroist? no, is every christian anti-abortion? no, is every socialist anti-establishment and anti american? no.
No socialist can be "anti-establishment", they can only be "anti-this-establisment", they need the mighty arm of government and it's guns to steal from people. As for the rest, I never had any bubble to begin with, it's always been perfectly clear that institutions run by men are corrupt. I was raised Catholic, so I had early insights.
Crispy said:
Those who believe their faith shouldn't have to tolerate your bias either unless they've chosen to force it down your throat in the process.
And a federal law mandating the words "under god" be in the Pledge isn't "forcing something down my throat"?
Crispy said:
They shouldn't have to tolerate being labeled as ignorant because they use faith as well as reason to conduct their life.
Sure they do. One, they're ignorant, and two, they don't have the authority to shut me up. It's a free society, supposedly.
Crispy said:
I could care less if we removed "under god" from the pledge or removed all religious symbols from the public domain but when the argument is underscored by rejecting others beliefs as opposed to respecting others beliefs I see the very same symptoms that have led to ideological conflict in the past. I see the nit picking of religious symbolism as its been presented in this thread and in much of this debate in the country as petty and anti religious, not genuine concern for equality (and to those who do stand for the equality alone this doesn't apply).
What's wrong with "anti-religious", so long as the offered alternative is "reason"?
And the genuine concern is for freedom, I don't give a crap about the chimera called "equality".
