Organized Religion & personal Spirituality

Since this thread is a spin-off of the pope thread, and since the corpse is now safely in the ground, I'd like to draw the attention of anyone interested to Michael Musto's column about JP2 in The Village Voice.Musto makes the obvious comparison between the lionization of the pope and the lionization of Ronald Reagan last year. His criticism of the pope is dead on, and he makes a number of points that hadn't yet been made on this forum.There is the old tradition, which I had always honored, of not offering harsh criticism of a man or woman during the period when their families and friends are mourning their death. I didn't observe it as closely this time, as you'll note if you read the earlier pope thread. Time was when the death of an important world leader would draw polite but at least somewhat muted praise from followers and detractors of the deceased. But in the age of 24-hour cable news that has changed into uninterrupted adulation bordering on deification, and a concomitant demonization of anyone who dares to offer an opposing opinion. Perhaps the 24-hour news channels are not the fault of Reagan or JP2, but if this sort of unrealistic praise is to be a feature of the mourning period of all deceased world leaders in future, then the old custom has become quaint and it's time to set it aside.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

While this is true, it also has led to the instant demonization of anyone living as long as they have been accused of something unpopular... even if it is trivial.Its like we've created an emotional pressure cooker and its warping society's usual coping mechanisms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I read it. The author has a point. (Why do these village voice guys draw so much attention to their "fagness"? Or am I stereotyping?)
We live in times of social change, thank God. Ultimately, if we as a species choose the path that is wrong, we will have freely chosen it and should expect God to respond.I doubt if He will be harsh as long as we are honest and passionate about our choices.And if He is, well..there is not much that we can do about it anyway.Best choice of action? Get to know Him now and commune with Him.

Not if they follow what Muhammad taught. Muhammad not only taught freedom of religion but it was also the norm, law and practice until very recently. It has only been since the rise of the Wahhabi sects under al-Wahhab that any conflicts arose.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, come on, jar. What's the point of having a religion if you're going to actually follow the teachings? You know the point of having a religion is to justify your a priori held social/political/moral beliefs. (This is meant to be sarcasm -- no offense intended toward your own sincere religous beliefs.)

I think the only reason we have disagreement is because we both think of "moral laws" a bit differently.What kind of meant is that the laws we have are the only things that the overwhelming majority of people can agree are wrong (whether they be moral issues or not, I think that really depends on personal definition of moral issues), once you step out off crimes that have a victim, then its a lot harder for the people of a large diverse population to reach a consensus.

StormWolfx2x writes:

quote:

---

...once you step out off crimes that have a victim, then its a lot harder for the people of a large diverse population to reach a consensus.

---

If a "crime" has no victim, then why regard it as a crime?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

OK..take as an example speeding 100 mph at midnite with few cars on the highway. Crime or no crime?Stealing from a dead person who had no heirs. Crime or no crime?Casual sex, followed by more anonymous partners....followed by unknown numbers of kids...Hey..no Dad no crime, right?

Phatboy quizzes me:

quote:

---

OK..take as an example speeding 100 mph at midnite with few cars on the highway. Crime or no crime?

---

Crime. There is a high potential for victims.

quote:

---

Stealing from a dead person who had no heirs. Crime or no crime?

---

If he had no heirs, then the state will inherit any possessions. That would be theft from the state, so there is a victim. Crime.

quote:

---

Casual sex, followed by more anonymous partners....followed by unknown numbers of kids...Hey..no Dad no crime, right?

---

I don't know about crime, but it'd certainly be wrong. If you're having kids with no regard for feeding and caring for them, then there most definitely are victims. I don't see promiscuity in and of itself to be a crime.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

quote:

---

It is my opinion the problem with western society, is this notion of "separation of church and state." This has turned into the situation where religion adjusts to the state, instead of vice versa. This is why Islamic states do not favor this arrangement of separation. Islam is a way of life, as the quote above states. It encompasses all, including state affairs. I believe Iraq democracy will initially start western but move to an Islamic state. We can live in peace together.

---

As an American woman, I flatly reject the notion that I would be better off under an Islamic state.Can you tell me how, under an Islamic government, I would have more personal freedom and control over my life, than I do now?

quote:

---

The porn again liberals are wrong because your P.C. relativistic live and let live philosophy will allow the world to become worse and worse.

---

Yeah, it would really suck if everybody just lived their own lives they way they wanted to without trying to force everyone else to live by their rules.It really would be better if everybody was forced to think exactly the same things and do exactly the same things.

I agree, but one can always find a way for a person to be considered victim, if there are no objective definitions or criteria of what makes someone a "victim".For instance in the examples PB gave you, I certainly did not see the speeder as a crime given a lonely highway. You saw potential for victims (disagree that it would be high) as being treatable as if there are victims.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let me try and help you gain perspective on this. Kind of a brain-building session.Moral laws have to do with social expectations, including from religious beliefs. Civil (or Civic) laws are those that are formed by the populace through their gov't, for their protection. Neither are inherently connected to the other. Morality=/=legality.It is not surprising that the civil laws people make reflect many of the same situations that moral laws deal with. That is of course the nature of laws in the first place, and that is dealing with unjust situations. It is just that morals laws can go further because their base is not just dealing with practical matters of action, but also thought and spiritual action.In practice of making laws the degree that civil and moral laws match each other will depend on the culture and the nature of their gov't.Where morality is allowed into gov't function, the laws lose their civic nature. Where secularity is important, morality is not generally found within the laws.The US gov't is secular and so the laws are primarily civil, except where moralists have convinced the people they are actually based on morals and so should reflect all our most common moralities. Some are confounded to know what laws are if not based on morality, what can a secular law be? Well, it is preservation of each citizens rights. That is based on our rights (the freedoms we expect for ourselves), what laws would logically be necessary to deal with issues where individuals' rights intersect.Interestingly enough John Ashcroft during his tenure as US attorney general gave a speech (I think it was to a religious group) explaining that US law is NOT civic law and instead is based on the moral law of God. His derision was firmly poured on concepts that we should trust in ideas of civil law and secularity.Thus, even some of the fundies get the distinction. Well I guess most of them do whether Islamic, Judaic, or Xian. They want their civic laws based on, or seen to be based on Religious principles, and not be possible through rational means. This is of course why fundies lie all the time about where our laws come from and indeed how the Mosaic laws were the first and most influential code of laws this world had.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

For instance in the examples PB gave you, I certainly did not see the speeder as a crime given a lonely highway.

---

I was responding to a statement about how difficult it is to get everyone to agree that something is a crime when there are no victims. I was only saying "why bother?" If you can't show that a particular activity is likely to create a victim or victims, then why should that activity be made illegal, or criminalized?I agree that it can be difficult in some cases to ascertain whether or not there has been a vicitim. But let's look at the highway example. If the highway Phatboy spoke of had no speed limit to begin with, and no one ever got hurt or killed on it even though people regularly drive that road at 100mph or so, then it would be hard to show a need for any speed limit. But if that road with no speed limit is the scene of regular, deadly accidents, then a potential for victims could be shown and it would be necessary to do something to protect those victims. If you can come up with something better than a speed limit to deal with the problem then great, let's have a look. Otherwise, we're stuck with imposing a speed limit. Once we've done that, the limit has to be enforced or else it will be ignored and we'll be right back where we started with a bloody highway where people are being regularly victimized.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!