|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Organized Religion & personal Spirituality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Really? Becuase it seems to me to consist of a bunch of people telling a Muslim that they feel they are superior. It does not appear to be about spirituality at all, but Muslim-baiting.
quote: Why is your country relevant or important? And, if speech is so free, why should I not speak freely here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Good point. I was just trying to get our focus back to spirituality on a personal level rather than on a national, theocratic level.
It is true that both are linked, however. Organized Religion all to often has a political agenda.We have seen how American fundies backed the current administration on the pretext of morality when the actual need was patriotism and preservation of wealth. My intent is to keep the argument focus on an individual perspective rather than a political call to arms. One question, however: Does anyone think that Islamic fundamentalism is intrinsically less linked to Capitalism than is American Fundamentalism? As a side note, I see a debate simmering inside of you in regards to corporate responsibility vs individual accountability. It is hopeless to bring back the thread with arachnophilia...I reviewed the banter...but I can empathise with you in regards to our thread here.The issue is linked. You have talked before of the need for a national consciousness. It is as close to spirituality as you get, yet I can feel the passion from an atheist such as you, Contra. I am trying to understand. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-12-2005 04:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually it's a bunch of people who are a bit miffed that a Muslim feels so superior that he has the right to impose his "ways" on other people whether they like it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
"Actually it's a bunch of people who are a bit miffed that a Muslim feels so superior that he has the right to impose his "ways" on other people whether they like it or not."
what "miffs" me is that he was saying we should all adopt muslim ways and was at the same using the guise of freedom of religion. I have much less of a problem with someone telling me that they think their way is right, then when someone tells me that I have the freedom to choose what I think is right as long as I come up with the same conclusion they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
StormWolfx2x Inactive Member |
"You won't convince me that God is merely an invention of the human mind. I like and respect human achievment, but I will never humanize the Creator while lifting up human wisdom."
Similarly you won't convince me that god exists, and I don’t think either one of us is going to change our minds, but I think that one of us forcing the other to agree with us is not the answer. Can we at least agree on that? If yes, then like you said religion is just a tool not the goal, if I use a different tool (human wisdom) to achieve the same goal then nothing else we disagree on really matters because we both end up in the same place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Really? Becuase it seems to me to consist of a bunch of people telling a Muslim that they feel they are superior. It does not appear to be about spirituality at all, but Muslim-baiting. The next time someone starts arguing in favor of a Christian theocracy, and the exact same arguments that are in this thread start appearing, I hope you'll show up and tell everyone that they're just Christian-baiting.
Why is your country relevant or important? Largely because IANAT began this argument by condemning the separation of church and state in the western world (post 5), then narrowed his focus to the supposed lack of moral control in the USA. (Post 23). So yes, it would seem that the relative merits of US law, specifically the first amendment, are fairly relevant to the conversation at hand. "You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: You mean, like the West and its mission to "spread democracy" by force? Or its previous incarnation, the British Empire and its "civilising mission"? You appear to have lost perspective. A Muslim gave you a cogent explanation of the princiepls on which their society is organised, and unsruprisingly, considers these principoles to be good ones. The respondants have consistently ATTRIBUTED totally unwarranted malice to his argument. Of course any good muslim wants the US to be a muslim state - wouldn't you want the best for your fellow humans? And these reponses have NOT shown recognition at all of differences of opinion, but have merely shouted you are wrong and tyrrannical. Its been an excellent demonstration of the utter hypocrisy of Western liberalism, hounoured as it is only in the breach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: And if they are baiting, instead of arguing or discussing, I certainly will.
quote: Yes, so? Was your patriotic nerve hit such that you had to come out of your corner swinging and frothing at the mouth? Was it not possible to simply argue the opposite case and present your opinion instead of leaping to accusations of tyranny?
quote: I cannot see why - I'm confident IANAT would advance EXACTLY the same criticism of the UK, or France, or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I think thats quite complicated. As a Patriarchal system, I think Islam defends what is essentially a Mercanilist mode of production as inherent and normal and moral. This is mostly implemented through the "family busines", as an expression of filial piety, respect for elders, and family unity. In that it is cognate with the complex that combines "family values" and the "morality of capitalism" into a single political nexus.
quote: Ah, well the idea, and arguably the coining, of "consciousness" in this context is very important to Marxism. That is, society structures itself through signs, symbols, conventions and statements of proper behaviour or morality into a worldview that is shared by most members of that society. The capitalist worldview contains the trope "every man for himself and devil take the hindmost", of which I disaprove. Most, say, village lifestyles, sometimes even in the developed west, include the trope "we are all us", to steal a trope from a game, of which I do approve. My criticism of religion in this regard is, once again, that its a world view based on veneration of ancient texts and ancient thinkers, rather than a clear-eyed analysis of the real world we live in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Yes, so? Was your patriotic nerve hit such that you had to come out of your corner swinging and frothing at the mouth? Actually, if you go back to my first post in this thread, it was less "frothing at the mouth" and more "jokes about sucking dick". Common mistake, really.
Was it not possible to simply argue the opposite case and present your opinion instead of leaping to accusations of tyranny? Time for a fun game... guess how many times the word "tyranny" has been used in this thread. Hint: the first use was in post 98.
I cannot see why - I'm confident IANAT would advance EXACTLY the same criticism of the UK, or France, or whatever. Perhaps he would. However, the country he did lob the accusation at was the US, specifically referring to a clause in the US Constitution. In other words, he began a conversation about US law, and now for some reason, you have a problem with people responding by talking about... US law. "You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Secular gov'ts are the only gov'ts capable of not interfering in personal religious practice as they deal only with practical day to day affairs, outside of the religious sphere. incorrect. based upon the painful but obvious truth that in many secular governments today many people's religious freedom is quite interfered with.in turkey and france people cannot wear any religious clothing in publi (ie government) buildings (france being specifically schools. the ban in turkey may even be limited to muslim articles). jews cannot wear a star, nor christians their cross, and muslim women cannot wear their headcovering. why? the government is uncomfortable with it. but it is more than a matter of comfort with the adherents. to be fair, the french law is attempting to limit disruptions in classes, but that's about as useful as dress codes over here. you cannot treat the symptom and expect a solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Well of course he did, becuase people go "well I'm an AMERICAN" (cue national anthem "and in AMERICA we are free" (flag in soft focus) "unlike you barbarians." So, umm "duh".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Well of course he did, becuase people go "well I'm an AMERICAN" (cue national anthem "and in AMERICA we are free" (flag in soft focus) "unlike you barbarians." Fun game #2: Count the number of times the word "barbarians" has been used in this thread. Hint: the first use was in post 102.
So, umm "duh". "Duh" to what? Your only response is to complain about accusations of barbarism that no one on this thread has made. So no, I still don't see how US law is irrelevant when responding to a criticism of US law. "You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: "we do it differently" is not a criticism, idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
"we do it differently" is not a criticism, idiot. Fun Game #3: Count the number of times the phrase "we do it differently" has been used in this thread. Hint: Yeah, you guessed it... the first use was in post 104. Oddly enough though, IANAT's first post in the thread did refer to "the problem with western society". Which sure sounds like criticism. But then, I'm an idiot. So what do I know. So in my idiocy, I'm left still wondering how US law can possibly be considered irrelevant when responding to a criticism of US law. Or, if the use of the word "criticism" gets that far up your ass, when disagreeing with a post about US law. This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-13-2005 10:28 AM "You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024