2 of 4
2
The Changing Face of Secularism
Posted: 28 June 2008 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

“Jack Shooter”

When one views the damage which has been wrought by secularism in the Christian world, and the nature of the damage which is currently manifesting itself in the Muslim world, one can readily see the accuracy of Ibn ‘Abbas’ explanation.

In the Muslim world, the reality of a life after death seems the furthest thing from many people’s mind. The obsession with the World, which drives Muslim participation in a new globalized consumer culture, is too clear to warrant further comment. Increasingly large numbers of Muslims feel deprived if growing arrays of labels and logos aren’t plastered over their clothing. The confusion in the Din is apparent in the expanding ranks of the religiously noncommitted, and the increasing pettiness of the issues being vehemently argued by the committed. The appeal of sin can be gauged by the ubiquitous nature of the satellite dishes which adorn the rooftops of houses throughout the Muslim world and the increased viewing of soft and hard pornography which those dishes facilitate.


The ills of the world are blamed on secularism with no evidence of this. History is full of human problems and secularism has been around (according to the author) for only a few hundred years. The satellite dishes and plastering of labels and logos on clothing are due to technology.  Perhaps the argument should be made against “technology” not “secularism.”  But in doing that, one would have to criticize technology’s success in increasing human longevity, improving nutrition and food supplies, curing and eliminating deadly diseases, etc… It’s easier to criticize “secularism” instead.  The author’s criticism is more in alignment with “materialism” not “secularism” and he is confusing the two concepts.

BTW: Many “secular” westerners will agree there is a concern for too much consumerism, corporate profits, global toxicity and an emphasis on materialism. This is not specifically a “religious” rooted belief.

At the family level, the disintegration of traditionally ascribed roles, rights, and responsibilities for men, women, and children is leading to stresses that many families cannot survive. In the Muslim community, the familial stability which made spouse and child abuse rare occurrences has given way to a volatile instability whose presence can be gauged by the rapidly escalating numbers of battered women, homeless children, and divorces.

Most changes throughout history came about because the old no longer sufficed current trends or lifestyles. For example, women use to bear large numbers of children because of high mortality rates in their young. Today, women have fewer children because of modern science and medicines increasing longevity rates. At one point, such changes would have been viewed as a threat to the family structure. Changes occur within and between populations across the globe because of various dynamics and such changes are not necessarily “good” or “bad.”

We have no evidence that spousal and child abuse is increasing, we only know that making such acts a crime, and removing the stigma for the victims in reporting such acts will increase the known statistics and lead to more prosecutions. Until the 1970’s, for example,  raping one’s wife in the US was not illegal (in some states). 

Environmentally, secularist ideals have led to what Professor ‘Abd al-Hakim Murad has referred to as the “gang rape” of the planet. The toxic byproducts of an ill-conceived developmental model poison our land, air, and the seas. Untreated sewage chokes and defiles our rivers and streams. Whole communities in coastal areas are rendered economically unviable due to overfishing so severe that in some areas even the hardy, once abundant codfish has disappeared. Even in remote areas of the planet which are presented by the tourist industry as “island paradises” the destructiveness of man’s economic hubris is all too clear.

Once again, this is not “secularism.”  Many environmentalist, who hold secularists views will heartily agree with this statement.  The problem is greed, profiteering, a religious belief that “dominion” over the planet means “rape and pillage” of its natural resources, etc… excessive materialism is the concept the author is missing here.

The above-mentioned victory of the liberal version of secularism has meant the victory of what Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading advocates of that version, refers to as free market capitalism and liberal democracy.

These ideals were practiced under capitalism and democracy but where validated and justified by Christian religious beliefs condoning man’s dominion over the planet.  Similar justification was enacted with the case of slavery and white man’s superiority. I think the author is very confused about what secularism entails. It is not specifically in bed with capitalist promoting the unleashed ideologies of free markets.  I would give that honor to Republicans (in the US) who are more aligned with Christian theology than secularism.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2008 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jack Shooter - 28 June 2008 11:24 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OoUkEISQQ

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf answering questions, talking about secularism.

He equates “mad science” to secularism.

“Mad science” is madness, insanity, disillusionment and immoral/unethical.

Secularism is not a derivative of “madness.”

Let’s separate the oil from the water.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2008 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
lindajean - 28 June 2008 11:56 AM

“Jack Shooter”

When one views the damage which has been wrought by secularism in the Christian world, and the nature of the damage which is currently manifesting itself in the Muslim world, one can readily see the accuracy of Ibn ‘Abbas’ explanation.

In the Muslim world, the reality of a life after death seems the furthest thing from many people’s mind. The obsession with the World, which drives Muslim participation in a new globalized consumer culture, is too clear to warrant further comment. Increasingly large numbers of Muslims feel deprived if growing arrays of labels and logos aren’t plastered over their clothing. The confusion in the Din is apparent in the expanding ranks of the religiously noncommitted, and the increasing pettiness of the issues being vehemently argued by the committed. The appeal of sin can be gauged by the ubiquitous nature of the satellite dishes which adorn the rooftops of houses throughout the Muslim world and the increased viewing of soft and hard pornography which those dishes facilitate.


The ills of the world are blamed on secularism with no evidence of this. History is full of human problems and secularism has been around (according to the author) for only a few hundred years. The satellite dishes and plastering of labels and logos on clothing are due to technology.  Perhaps the argument should be made against “technology” not “secularism.”  But in doing that, one would have to criticize technology’s success in increasing human longevity, improving nutrition and food supplies, curing and eliminating deadly diseases, etc… It’s easier to criticize “secularism” instead.  The author’s criticism is more in alignment with “materialism” not “secularism” and he is confusing the two concepts.

BTW: Many “secular” westerners will agree there is a concern for too much consumerism, corporate profits, global toxicity and an emphasis on materialism. This is not specifically a “religious” rooted belief.

At the family level, the disintegration of traditionally ascribed roles, rights, and responsibilities for men, women, and children is leading to stresses that many families cannot survive. In the Muslim community, the familial stability which made spouse and child abuse rare occurrences has given way to a volatile instability whose presence can be gauged by the rapidly escalating numbers of battered women, homeless children, and divorces.

Most changes throughout history came about because the old no longer sufficed current trends or lifestyles. For example, women use to bear large numbers of children because of high mortality rates in their young. Today, women have fewer children because of modern science and medicines increasing longevity rates. At one point, such changes would have been viewed as a threat to the family structure. Changes occur within and between populations across the globe because of various dynamics and such changes are not necessarily “good” or “bad.”

We have no evidence that spousal and child abuse is increasing, we only know that making such acts a crime, and removing the stigma for the victims in reporting such acts will increase the known statistics and lead to more prosecutions. Until the 1970’s, for example,  raping one’s wife in the US was not illegal (in some states). 

Environmentally, secularist ideals have led to what Professor ‘Abd al-Hakim Murad has referred to as the “gang rape” of the planet. The toxic byproducts of an ill-conceived developmental model poison our land, air, and the seas. Untreated sewage chokes and defiles our rivers and streams. Whole communities in coastal areas are rendered economically unviable due to overfishing so severe that in some areas even the hardy, once abundant codfish has disappeared. Even in remote areas of the planet which are presented by the tourist industry as “island paradises” the destructiveness of man’s economic hubris is all too clear.

Once again, this is not “secularism.”  Many environmentalist, who hold secularists views will heartily agree with this statement.  The problem is greed, profiteering, a religious belief that “dominion” over the planet means “rape and pillage” of its natural resources, etc… excessive materialism is the concept the author is missing here.

The above-mentioned victory of the liberal version of secularism has meant the victory of what Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading advocates of that version, refers to as free market capitalism and liberal democracy.

These ideals were practiced under capitalism and democracy but where validated and justified by Christian religious beliefs condoning man’s dominion over the planet.  Similar justification was enacted with the case of slavery and white man’s superiority. I think the author is very confused about what secularism entails. It is not specifically in bed with capitalist promoting the unleashed ideologies of free markets.  I would give that honor to Republicans (in the US) who are more aligned with Christian theology than secularism.

Your in denial.  Secularism is not so innocent.  Remember, secularism essentially refers to the divorce of the sacred from the mundane.  Mistakenly, you cite technology as blameworthy according to the logic presented by Imam Zaid Shakir, whereas according to his view, it is more correctly understood as only a tool, which can potentially be used for sacred ends, but is in reality, today, most often used towards secular ends (i.e. divorce from religion).  That technology has made widespread the availability of pornography and other non-sense is not the fault of technology, but the ideology which underlies its use for such things.

With respect to family structure, did you know that today 40% of children are born out of wedlock?  I don’t know about you, but I would say this trend is problematic for too many reasons which are self-evident, though I can list them if you really need me to.  In any event, the breakdown of family structure does have a lot to do with secular ideology, which underly the political and economic forces that bring such change about.

With regards to the enviornment, religion, Islam anyway, requires that one be a caretaker of the earth, as the many Qur’anic verses and hadith clearly state.

So again, I think your in denial about what secularism acutally entails and the evils which it has given rise to.  This is, of course, keeping in mind that your ‘enlightened’ form of ‘secularsim’ is more religious in nature than you want to know.

[ Edited: 28 June 2008 09:15 AM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2008 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
Jack Shooter - 28 June 2008 11:24 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OoUkEISQQ

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf answering questions, talking about secularism.


Is was bad enough for you to spam us with the text from Yusuf.
Now you want us to watch the movie too?

Stay Well
Wot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2008 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Wotansson - 28 June 2008 04:19 PM
Jack Shooter - 28 June 2008 11:24 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OoUkEISQQ

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf answering questions, talking about secularism.


Is was bad enough for you to spam us with the text from Yusuf.
Now you want us to watch the movie too?

Stay Well
Wot

It’s for your own benefit.  I have nothing to gain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2008 05:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

I think the religious world does not understand what a powerful ally it has is secularism. What is it that the secular advocates and perhaps even demands?:

1. Believe as you wish and I defend your right to do so so long as your beliefs do me no harm.
2. Do not endeavor to impose your beliefs upon others.
3. Keep your beliefs as a personal matter and out of government.

What religion offers this broad tolerance to another religion? None of the Semite faiths for sure. True peace and salvation (from ourselves) is only offered by secularism.

Religion in general, and Islam as an example, will not the accept the above.
The religious view and mission insists on the acceptance and dominance of their own views in the public sector. This is always viewed as a mission from their god and is the most blatant form of intolerance.

Here is a good but lengthy video organized by Suarez concerning the leadership of Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEUUtHAaTto&NR=1

My comments on the video:

Islam has no coherent leadership but this is not unique to Islam. Islam is in chaos due to this lack of leadership and mottled interpretations of the Koran and Islamic law. Should any coherency ever be added to Islam, it will need to come from an Arab, as westerners will never be viewed with any credibility. This is bad news since Arabs are locked in the medieval with their perspectives.
Religion is not the answer.

Stay Well

Wot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2008 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Wotansson - 29 June 2008 09:59 AM

I think the religious world does not understand what a powerful ally it has is secularism. What is it that the secular advocates and perhaps even demands?:

1. Believe as you wish and I defend your right to do so so long as your beliefs do me no harm.
2. Do not endeavor to impose your beliefs upon others.
3. Keep your beliefs as a personal matter and out of government.

What religion offers this broad tolerance to another religion? None of the Semite faiths for sure. True peace and salvation (from ourselves) is only offered by secularism.

Religion in general, and Islam as an example, will not the accept the above.
The religious view and mission insists on the acceptance and dominance of their own views in the public sector. This is always viewed as a mission from their god and is the most blatant form of intolerance.

Here is a good but lengthy video organized by Suarez concerning the leadership of Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEUUtHAaTto&NR=1

My comments on the video:

Islam has no coherent leadership but this is not unique to Islam. Islam is in chaos due to this lack of leadership and mottled interpretations of the Koran and Islamic law. Should any coherency ever be added to Islam, it will need to come from an Arab, as westerners will never be viewed with any credibility. This is bad news since Arabs are locked in the medieval with their perspectives.
Religion is not the answer.

Stay Well

Wot

Wot says,

Secularism is great because it says:

1. Believe as you wish and I defend your right to do so so long as your beliefs do me no harm.
2. Do not endeavor to impose your beliefs upon others.
3. Keep your beliefs as a personal matter and out of government.

I say,

Islam is greater because (apart from it being revealed Truth) it says:

1. Believe as you wish and I defend your right to do so so long as your beliefs do me (or greater society) no harm.
2. Do not endeavor to impose your beliefs upon others.  “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (The Qur’an).
3. Keep your beliefs as a personal matter out of government, but let the best of human values infuse the decisions of those who are in power.

Wot says:

“Should any coherency ever be added to Islam, it will need to come from an Arab, as westerners will never be viewed with any credibility. This is bad news since Arabs are locked in the medieval with their perspectives.”

I say:

Do Hamza Yusuf, Abdul Hakim Murad, Zaid Shakir, Johnathan Brown, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Omar Abdullah Farooq, Ingrid Mattison, Aisha Bewley, and other Muslim leaders appear ethnically Arab to you?  Do they look as though they are locked in medieval perspectives?  I don’t think so.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2008 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

author=“Jack Shooter” date=“1214683559”

Your in denial.  Secularism is not so innocent.  Remember, secularism essentially refers to the divorce of the sacred from the mundane.  Mistakenly, you cite technology as blameworthy according to the logic presented by Imam Zaid Shakir, whereas according to his view, it is more correctly understood as only a tool, which can potentially be used for sacred ends, but is in reality, today, most often used towards secular ends (i.e. divorce from religion).  That technology has made widespread the availability of pornography and other non-sense is not the fault of technology, but the ideology which underlies its use for such things.

 


This is a dichotomy, “sacred” is good and “secular” is bad, and is based on your personal beliefs about religion, but is not based on any substantial facts about the world at large.


What you can never explain is the possibility and plausibility that your religion is not sacred (in any objective way),  that there is no God who   creates moral law,  and that humans must cooperate to live together peacefully. It is mainly through cooperation and altruism that humans have continued to survive.  Do you have any understanding that primates and other animals other than humans have complex social and altruistic skills that are genetically imbedded in their physical constitutions? That without these codes and instincts they also would be unable to survive?  There is nothing sacred about their biology. There is nothing sacred about ours as well.

With respect to family structure, did you know that today 40% of children are born out of wedlock?  I don’t know about you, but I would say this trend is problematic for too many reasons which are self-evident, though I can list them if you really need me to.  In any event, the breakdown of family structure does have a lot to do with secular ideology, which underly the political and economic forces that bring such change about.

With regards to the enviornment, religion, Islam anyway, requires that one be a caretaker of the earth, as the many Qur’anic verses and hadith clearly state.

So again, I think your in denial about what secularism acutally entails and the evils which it has given rise to.  This is, of course, keeping in mind that your ‘enlightened’ form of ‘secularsim’ is more religious in nature than you want to know.

It is interesting that so many religious people have certain “issues” that they struggle with and they convince themselves that it is these specific issues that are bringing disastrous change. For example, you cite the break down of the family, spousal abuse, divorce, pornography….

But few of the religious talk about other “political and social forces” that bring about the demise of families as well.  War, crime, poverty, preventable diseases (i.e. AIDS), illiteracy,  poor nutrition, etc….

Jack, from the religious, why are certain issues so detrimental to humans and the family in particular but others are not?  Why do I hear little about the issues of human suffering (which are objective) but so much about issues of human morality (which are very subjective)?  Why is morality more important than suffering in the eyes of the religious? And why is public policy—-generally speaking—-related to morality over suffering?  Why aren’t Christian and Islamic leaders making policy to stop Aids infestations (mainly in the third world), ending poverty, promoting the end of curable diseases, promoting literacy and scientific-enriched curriculum (instead of Koranic readings and memorization), reducing global warming, etc…. if they want to keep families together?

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2008 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
lindajean - 29 June 2008 02:10 PM

author=“Jack Shooter” date=“1214683559”

Your in denial.  Secularism is not so innocent.  Remember, secularism essentially refers to the divorce of the sacred from the mundane.  Mistakenly, you cite technology as blameworthy according to the logic presented by Imam Zaid Shakir, whereas according to his view, it is more correctly understood as only a tool, which can potentially be used for sacred ends, but is in reality, today, most often used towards secular ends (i.e. divorce from religion).  That technology has made widespread the availability of pornography and other non-sense is not the fault of technology, but the ideology which underlies its use for such things.

 


lindajean:

This is a dichotomy, “sacred” is good and “secular” is bad, and is based on your personal beliefs about religion, but is not based on any substantial facts about the world at large.

Actually, Islamic law recognizes there are mundane or ‘secular’ acts that are not made sacred unless done in God’s name, such as eating for example.  Although it is not good to eat without invoking God’s name and blessing and thanking Him for the food, it is not considered ‘bad’ to do so in the sense that doing so is punishable.

More to your point, however, I think Imam Zaid’s article, as well as Shaykh Hamza’s 11 part video on YouTube provide ample critique of secularism, which would lead anyone to conclude that it is, in essence, a ‘bad’ thing for humanity.  Remember here, I’m not referring to those values that you call are secular but actually find their reasoning in religion (i.e. all people are equal).  I’m talking about all the other nonsense that secularism gives way to (i.e. mass consumerism, destruction of the planet).

lindajean:

What you can never explain is the possibility and plausibility that your religion is not sacred (in any objective way),  that there is no God who   creates moral law,  and that humans must cooperate to live together peacefully. It is mainly through cooperation and altruism that humans have continued to survive.

Given that you are the atheist, I let you do the explaining about the possibility that there is no God and so forth, I evaluate your reasons for denying the existence of God, and I respond.  Now, what you cannot explain is why we must survive in the first place?  Sure we may evolve, but why, and to what end?  This is the fundamental question that science has no answer to, nor will it ever.  This is why one can be a scientist and a believer in God.

lindajean:

Do you have any understanding that primates and other animals other than humans have complex social and altruistic skills that are genetically imbedded in their physical constitutions? That without these codes and instincts they also would be unable to survive?  There is nothing sacred about their biology. There is nothing sacred about ours as well.

If nothing is sacred, then why should anyone respect life?  I guess, atheists don’t, and that’s why suicide is easy for them.  Sucks to be them.

Anyway, regarding animals, I do understand what you say.  Who ever said that animals are not sacred creatures?  Consider this verse from the Qur’an carefully:

There is no creature on the Earth, nor any bird flying upon its wings, except that it comprises communities like yourselves.
Al-An’am: 38

With respect to family structure, did you know that today 40% of children are born out of wedlock?  I don’t know about you, but I would say this trend is problematic for too many reasons which are self-evident, though I can list them if you really need me to.  In any event, the breakdown of family structure does have a lot to do with secular ideology, which underly the political and economic forces that bring such change about.

With regards to the enviornment, religion, Islam anyway, requires that one be a caretaker of the earth, as the many Qur’anic verses and hadith clearly state.

So again, I think your in denial about what secularism acutally entails and the evils which it has given rise to.  This is, of course, keeping in mind that your ‘enlightened’ form of ‘secularsim’ is more religious in nature than you want to know.

lindajean:

It is interesting that so many religious people have certain “issues” that they struggle with and they convince themselves that it is these specific issues that are bringing disastrous change. For example, you cite the break down of the family, spousal abuse, divorce, pornography….

But few of the religious talk about other “political and social forces” that bring about the demise of families as well.  War, crime, poverty, preventable diseases (i.e. AIDS), illiteracy,  poor nutrition, etc….

That’s simply not true.  Many of the religious speak about those broader issues.  Imam Zaid’s article actually did focus on the larger issue of the enviornment remember.  I’m sorry, but what you say here is just not true, even if it seems so.

Having said that, family constitutes the basic unit of society, which, when strong results in good government and subsequent policy, so it makes sense to emphasize threats to the family insitution.


lindajean:

Jack, from the religious, why are certain issues so detrimental to humans and the family in particular but others are not?

Who said certain issues are important and others are not?  They are in fact, according to religious folk, myself, and others I know, all important.  Sure some may be seen as more important than others, but no one is denying the problems you talk about, and focus has been put on them.  Perhaps this is your perception based on your lack of insight into what Muslims, and their leaders take issue with.


lindajean:

Why do I hear little about the issues of human suffering (which are objective) but so much about issues of human morality (which are very subjective)?  Why is morality more important than suffering in the eyes of the religious? And why is public policy—-generally speaking—-related to morality over suffering?  Why aren’t Christian and Islamic leaders making policy to stop Aids infestations (mainly in the third world), ending poverty, promoting the end of curable diseases, promoting literacy and scientific-enriched curriculum (instead of Koranic readings and memorization), reducing global warming, etc…. if they want to keep families together?

Why you hear only about those issues is a good question to ask yourself.  Perhaps you need to turn off your selective hearing mode, or just look a little deeper?

Again, Muslims, and I think religious people in general do care about human suffering and these broader issues.  Clearly, Christian and Jewish organizations do a lot in the way of charity to alleviate poverty and do a lot in the way of trying to fight disease.  Muslims do a lot as well.  In fact, many of my personal friends are doctors here in the West, and I myself, God willing, will be initiating a large charitable effort in the near future.  Unfortunately, Muslims have a problem when it comes to marketing such efforts, and maybe thats why it seems like we only care about ‘subjective’ things as you call it.  Just know that we’re working on it.

http://www.thewcmp.net/about_wcmp.php
http://www.thewcmp.net/partners.php

By the way, did you know it is cumpulsory for Muslims to give %2.5 of their surplus wealth to those in need on an annual basis.  This is called ‘zakat’ and it is one of the five pillars of Islam.  In the Qur’an, God never mentions the command to pray except that it is accompanied by a command to spend in charity to those in need.

[ Edited: 29 June 2008 11:18 AM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2008 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

Jack Shooter

Just know that we are working on it.

I am glad to hear the good news.

But I actually was not referring (per se) to individual religious people who give to charities. I understand that many do as do many non-religious people. That kind of generosity and philanthropy is kind and thoughtful.

I was referring to religious leaders who focus on “sin” and seem overly compelled to make sin the heart and soul of their religious messages.  This is very common in Religious Right Christian leaders many of whom acquire great wealth as well. I am aware that much of scripture speaks of poverty issues and working to help those who suffer.  But my point is many religious people do not practice these virtues and I believe religious leaders are responsible for the emphasis on sin over suffering. This flows over into public policy when the US promises to fight Aids in Africa and then refuses to teach safe sex through condom use.  They teach abstinence instead which does not work and research has shown it does not. The same holds true for sex education in the US public schools. This is where religious beliefs actually cause more harm than the secular views which promote honest sex ed policies.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
lindajean - 29 June 2008 06:04 PM

Jack Shooter

Just know that we are working on it.

I am glad to hear the good news.

But I actually was not referring (per se) to individual religious people who give to charities. I understand that many do as do many non-religious people. That kind of generosity and philanthropy is kind and thoughtful.

I was referring to religious leaders who focus on “sin” and seem overly compelled to make sin the heart and soul of their religious messages.  This is very common in Religious Right Christian leaders many of whom acquire great wealth as well. I am aware that much of scripture speaks of poverty issues and working to help those who suffer.  But my point is many religious people do not practice these virtues and I believe religious leaders are responsible for the emphasis on sin over suffering. This flows over into public policy when the US promises to fight Aids in Africa and then refuses to teach safe sex through condom use.  They teach abstinence instead which does not work and research has shown it does not. The same holds true for sex education in the US public schools. This is where religious beliefs actually cause more harm than the secular views which promote honest sex ed policies.

Actually, I would question research that says abstinence is necessarily a failed policy.  Harm reduction is a good approach, but I don’t see any problem with working towards encouraging abstinence, prohbition, and other hardline approaches to social problems.

Anyway, I would agree that religious leaders in general need to raise their level of discourse so that greater society can begin to find religion relevant as it ought to be regarded as.  I believe religion is the source of our solutions, not our problems.  If people were better Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and so forth, the world would be a better place.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2008 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Jack Shooter:
If people were better Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and so forth, the world would be a better place.

They have had their shot at it for thousands of years now and look at the mess religion has created. The basic religious premise is faulty and destructive. Religious dogma can not be allowed to replace the reasoning human mind which is the only hope for peace and salvation.

Wassail
Wot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2008 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Jack Shooter - 03 July 2008 08:51 PM


Anyway, I would agree that religious leaders in general need to raise their level of discourse so that greater society can begin to find religion relevant as it ought to be regarded as.  I believe religion is the source of our solutions, not our problems.  If people were better Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and so forth, the world would be a better place.

That is all fine and good, but it is only an opinion and while opinions have their rightful place in the world, it is facts and evidence that ought to be the precursor to public policy, law and much of cultural traditions.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2008 09:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Wotansson - 04 July 2008 10:24 AM

Jack Shooter:
If people were better Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and so forth, the world would be a better place.

They have had their shot at it for thousands of years now and look at the mess religion has created. The basic religious premise is faulty and destructive. Religious dogma can not be allowed to replace the reasoning human mind which is the only hope for peace and salvation.

Wassail
Wot

Actually, in the modern era, say 18th century onwards, the mess was created by secular thinking.  Today’s wars, which are inextricably linked to poverty in various places, are fueled by gross widespread consumer culture, which is an offset of secular thought (i.e. thought void of considerations of the divine).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2008 03:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:58 AM
Wotansson - 04 July 2008 10:24 AM

Jack Shooter:
If people were better Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and so forth, the world would be a better place.

They have had their shot at it for thousands of years now and look at the mess religion has created. The basic religious premise is faulty and destructive. Religious dogma can not be allowed to replace the reasoning human mind which is the only hope for peace and salvation.

Wassail
Wot

Actually, in the modern era, say 18th century onwards, the mess was created by secular thinking.  Today’s wars, which are inextricably linked to poverty in various places, are fueled by gross widespread consumer culture, which is an offset of secular thought (i.e. thought void of considerations of the divine).

This is complete nonsense and it is time for you to quit.  This has been pointed out to you by numerous posters and still you persist. You and the Muslim effort to blame the secular world and consumerism is becoming boring.

Wassail
Wot

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed