Right, but prior to the 50s/60s, Catholics in America were a much more unified 'progressive' movement than they are today. I was a little imprecise, I just mean that I know a fair number of older Catholics who haven't voted Democratic in their lifetime, but who have policy goals that might (other than abortion) be labeled as fairly Leftist.
Social Justice conservatives haven't really had a home since the 60s, so they've largely held their noses and voted for Republicans.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
There are also a number of faith-based lobbies and charities out there that push the government to donate aid to one worthwhile cause or another (see: the Save Darfur Coallition, which is made up mostly of faith-based organizations).
There are also a number of faith-based lobbies and charities out there that push the government to donate aid to one worthwhile cause or another (see: the Save Darfur Coallition, which is made up mostly of faith-based organizations).
There are also faith-based initiatives to spread "abstinence only" education to african countries.
I fail to see how either of these things are relevant.
Right, but prior to the 50s/60s, Catholics in America were a much more unified 'progressive' movement than they are today. I was a little imprecise, I just mean that I know a fair number of older Catholics who haven't voted Democratic in their lifetime, but who have policy goals that might (other than abortion) be labeled as fairly Leftist.
Social Justice conservatives haven't really had a home since the 60s, so they've largely held their noses and voted for Republicans.
I think Catholics tend to hold their noses voting for either party due to beliefs falling far behind both parties lines. Other than that, I fully agree.
At any rate, if the sizable Catholic population did again unify as a progressive movement (or at least 65% of them), wouldn't that put them in the same position as the Evangelicals that people seem to feel oversteps the bounds of religion?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
There are also a number of faith-based lobbies and charities out there that push the government to donate aid to one worthwhile cause or another (see: the Save Darfur Coallition, which is made up mostly of faith-based organizations).
There are also faith-based initiatives to spread "abstinence only" education to african countries.
I fail to see how either of these things are relevant.
Part of this discussion was about religion influencing government (not neccessarily being intertwined with it). A great deal of what the government does is decide where money goes. There were a lot of characterizations being made about any religious influence on the US federal government being negative or yeilding negative results. I was pointing out that that is not always the case.
I think the problem is religious groups using money and influence to advance agendas within the government. The message to them should be "STAY OUT".
On the other hand, plenty of people donate money to MoveOn to advance agendas within the government as do the NAACP, AARP, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Evangelicals, but it's no surprise that anyone tries to influence policy in the way they see as right.
Well I'm not a huge fan of 527's either, but the distinction for me is they are purely political. I view church and school the same way. Church to me IS school for your religion, not the public school system.
I actually had listed Saudi Arabia in my examples, but I edited it out. Namely because while Saudi Arabia is very religious, there is a great deal of strife between the government and the fundamentalists. There have been numerous bombings by al-Queda and other groups against Saudi targets, and big time Saudi crackdowns against them. I think this is another example where the rules of Saudi Arabia may like the idea of using Islam to shore up support for themselves, in reality it doesn't work that way, and they end up fighting the religious elements intead of getting support from them.
I think the unrest in Saudi Arabia is best seen as sectarian violence in a theocracy. It is certainly nothing new in the long history of Islamic theocracy. Medieval caliphates were, like the current rulers of Saudi Arabia, extremely corrupt and affluent, and had to crack down on piety-minded dissidents and often went to war against rival sects of Muslims. Similarly, the Catholic Church punished heretics and engaged in warfare with rival sects.
Also, most religions are inherently corrupt. I know everyone likes to skip the book of Leviticus but it's worth reading—notice how Yahweh likes salt and seasonings on his delicious sacrifices, and notice how the priests always get a cut. The priests also get a share of the slave-girl war captives when Moses goes to war against the Midianites.
Almost every religion started as a cult with the intent to empower an elite caste of "spiritual professionals" or an individual and his devotees. Yeah, they sometimes have nice morals like "do not steal (from fellow believers)," but it's hardly surprising that religions tend to engage in politics—it's written in their DNA.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Really, this newfangled separation of the political and the religious is a great thing for the religious. If any one sect ever gains the backing of the government it is always at the expense of a vast number of other groups with differing views.
When one particular branch of Christianity gained the support of the Roman emperor and his legions far more Christians were slain as heretics for not conforming to that one narrow view than were ever martyred in the previous centuries.
Can you imagine the fallout in America today if one group of fundies actually got their wish and magically became the church of the American God-Emperor? They would never have the chance to stir up shit with Muslims or renew the age-old Christian tradition of the Pogrom. They would be too busy trying to stamp down (and being stamped down) by the hundred other white-protestant-christian sects who differ with them on minor liturgical issues.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
This is because it's a terrible point that requires an ignorance of the issue.
Can you imagine the fallout in America today if one group of fundies actually got their wish and magically became the church of the American God-Emperor? They would never have the chance to stir up shit with Muslims or renew the age-old Christian tradition of the Pogrom. They would be too busy trying to stamp down (and being stamped down) by the hundred other white-protestant-christian sects who differ with them on minor liturgical issues.
And the world would be a better place.
Don't take me wrong, I'm an atheist and whenever it affects my everyday life (which, me being a gay geneticist, it occasionally does) I hate religion, but I do think it has it's uses. A lot of people don't think for themselves no matter what, so why not give them a version of God that endorses, directly or indirectly, a world that works.
Can you imagine the fallout in America today if one group of fundies actually got their wish and magically became the church of the American God-Emperor? They would never have the chance to stir up shit with Muslims or renew the age-old Christian tradition of the Pogrom. They would be too busy trying to stamp down (and being stamped down) by the hundred other white-protestant-christian sects who differ with them on minor liturgical issues.
And the world would be a better place.
Don't take me wrong, I'm an atheist and whenever it affects my everyday life (which, me being a gay geneticist, it occasionally does) I hate religion, but I do think it has it's uses. A lot of people don't think for themselves no matter what, so why not give them a version of God that endorses, directly or indirectly, a world that works.
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
MikeMan on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Just to get this point in as no one else has mentioned it, but there is no law or nothing in the constitution that states separation of church and state.
The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are law. And they've repeatedly upheld a separation of church and state.
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Fortunately (at least in America), they're also hardwired to believe things like slavery and genocide are wrong and rape victims should not marry their rapists.
Which is why people should be making moral arguments against religion, not "intellectual" arguments.
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
I fail to see how honestly and cogently expressing my views could be seen as patronizing.
I think that apathy is a big problem for a lot of the developed world, but I am of the opinion that if I could, unprompted, come to the conclusion I have, others can too.
MikeMan on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Hello. I am a religious person. I do not find Mike to be patronizing or anything but honest.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Fortunately (at least in America), they're also hardwired to believe things like slavery and genocide are wrong and rape victims should not marry their rapists.
Which is why people should be making moral arguments against religion, not "intellectual" arguments.
Jesus Christ (olol) Qingu, you really have an axe to grind about this shit.
Here, lemme lay it out for you: Modern religions in the western world have almost nothing in common with the Levitican horrors of their past. No one fucking cares how many babies were eaten in the name of Yahweh, no one actually reads those parts of the Bible anymore, and your railing against those parts is irrelevant at best, and derailing at worst.
Please. For the children. Drop it.
Yes, we all understand that religions are based on horrible deeds, texts, and beliefs. But "Christians" in America are more American than Christian by your definition of Christianity, so accept that and let's all move on, k?
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Hello. I am a religious person. I do not find Mike to be patronizing or anything but honest.
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Hello. I am a religious person. I do not find Mike to be patronizing or anything but honest.
Carry on.
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nitpicks aside, I wasn't talking about people like you, Podly, with my "opiate for the masses" argument, and I don't think MikeMan is interested in "teaching" you either, so I'm not sure what your point was.
Do carry on yourself as well, though.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nah, Catholicism encourages philosophy if you aren't a peasant from the 18th century, but even if I was I would hope people would try to teach me their philosophical traditions if I'm not aware of them.
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nah, Catholicism encourages philosophy if you aren't a peasant from the 18th century, but even if I was I would hope people would try to teach me their philosophical traditions if I'm not aware of them.
Clever. Do you disagree with my previous posts, which were about large groups whose voting and day to day decisions are influenced by religion? Or did you just feel personally offended by my post and wanted to retaliate?
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nah, Catholicism encourages philosophy if you aren't a peasant from the 18th century, but even if I was I would hope people would try to teach me their philosophical traditions if I'm not aware of them.
Clever. Do you disagree with my previous posts, which were about large groups whose voting and day to day decisions are influenced by religion? Or did you just feel personally offended by my post and wanted to retaliate?
Somewhat. I think that people are influenced by religion, but most people will be influenced by some authority anyways. The way you said it is that people are willfully ignorant. I just think that they get comfortable being told what to do.
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nah, Catholicism encourages philosophy if you aren't a peasant from the 18th century, but even if I was I would hope people would try to teach me their philosophical traditions if I'm not aware of them.
Clever. Do you disagree with my previous posts, which were about large groups whose voting and day to day decisions are influenced by religion? Or did you just feel personally offended by my post and wanted to retaliate?
Somewhat. I think that people are influenced by religion, but most people will be influenced by some authority anyways. The way you said it is that people are willfully ignorant. I just think that they get comfortable being told what to do.
I'm not sure if there's a difference, but the latter part is what I think the problem is, on the societal level, so I suppose I should have phrased my post differently. I definitely don't think that the tendency to avoid personal responsibility or rational thinking applies to religious people alone. In some aspects I think it applies less to them. There are people in all walks of life who live almost like zombies, and I'm offended by that.
There's a lot of very subtle ways in which the U.S. has, despite it being written in our Constitution, failed to separate Church and State. For example, the fact that our Congressman/Senators/Presidents are sworn in by placing their hand on the Bible(see also, the dude that was sworn in on the Koran...you have your choice of religious institution upon which you'd like to swear your oath of loyalty to the nation). I spent some time living in France, and when I talked to people there about this subject, one of the things that always came up was that the U.S. "claims" to have separation of Church and State yet still does stuff like this. In France, the separation is much more...institutionalized. There are almost no vestiges of religion in the administrative workings of government, although this probably has more to do with the Revolution than anything.
This is not true. Presidents are not required to swear in on the Bible or any other book, although nearly all of them had due to their personal beliefs.
Congressional representatives are sworn into office all at once without any books. The congressman who "swore in" on a Koran didn't actually swear in on a Koran, just like the others didn't actually swear in on a Bible. They hold private, unofficial "swearing in" ceremonies afterwards in which they generally choose to swear on said books.
I've read that Europeans break the barrier too, just differently, such as bringing classes to churches and banning religiously required clothing (because Christianity has, at must, little cross necklaces).
I must note that the faith based funding has been denounced (in a letter to the NYT) by (if my memory is correct) a Rabbinical Council thing (I don't remember the denomination, probably Reform [which is run, I believe, by the votes of all reform rabbis]).
I would also like to point out that almost all of the foreign aid going to religiously affiliated organizations is going to Christian, even in Afghanistan, where people are afraid of being pressured into converting (NYT story from a couple years back)!
I think the example of a nation state being a religion you were looking for is Israel. It was founded on religious dogma, maintains it's claims to deeply contested land (and expansion) by virtue of religious right, and draws it's national identity from it's religious heritage. I can't necessarily say whether that's a good or bad thing, but it does meet the idea you seem to be thinking of.
Huh, good call, I can't believe I didn't think of Israel. I would definately say its a bad thing, or at least something that tends to lead to more bad than good.
Fine then, which brand of Judaism is the state religion of Israel? Is it orthodox Judaism? If so, then why is there a specifically an "orthodox judaism" party, the Shas party? And why are there liberal or secular parties in Israel? And why did the two party system (Likud and Labor) establish Israel on a more or less secular path for the last 60 years. Why are the Kibbutzim that were so important for creating a foundation for Zionism, and are the groundswell of zionist feeling today, steadfastly secular, to the point where 90+ percent of them are secular?
...
Have fun with answering those. Israel is the "Jewish State", but it does hold itself under the basic principles of the first amendment (the right of return, the most blatantly religious part of Israel, is a government program, not founded on religion.
I think the example of a nation state being a religion you were looking for is Israel. It was founded on religious dogma, maintains it's claims to deeply contested land (and expansion) by virtue of religious right, and draws it's national identity from it's religious heritage. I can't necessarily say whether that's a good or bad thing, but it does meet the idea you seem to be thinking of.
Huh, good call, I can't believe I didn't think of Israel. I would definately say its a bad thing, or at least something that tends to lead to more bad than good.
Fine then, which brand of Judaism is the state religion of Israel? Is it orthodox Judaism? If so, then why is there a specifically an "orthodox judaism" party, the Shas party? And why are there liberal or secular parties in Israel? And why did the two party system (Likud and Labor) establish Israel on a more or less secular path for the last 60 years. Why are the Kibbutzim that were so important for creating a foundation for Zionism, and are the groundswell of zionist feeling today, steadfastly secular, to the point where 90+ percent of them are secular?
...
Have fun with answering those. Israel is the "Jewish State", but it does hold itself under the basic principles of the first amendment (the right of return, the most blatantly religious part of Israel, is a government program, not founded on religion.
THat's cause Judaism is some sort of freaky combination of religion, race and culture. Makes it a pain to classify.
THat's cause Judaism is some sort of freaky combination of religion, race and culture. Makes it a pain to classify.
It's really not that different from Christianity. You even have your "Race-Based" Christians, though they're mostly incredibly ignorant white supremacists.
THat's cause Judaism is some sort of freaky combination of religion, race and culture. Makes it a pain to classify.
It's really not that different from Christianity. You even have your "Race-Based" Christians, though they're mostly incredibly ignorant white supremacists.
Christianity is not a race.
shryke on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
I'd love to see tax exemption for religions done away with. Scientology is probably going to be helpful in convincing people that this is a good idea.
I'd love to see tax exemption for religions done away with.
In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally.
-- Ulysses S Grant
There's got to be a reason we haven't taxed religion yet.
Other than the old white religious guys who're just looking out for their churches (instead of pragmatically looking out for their country) and the other type of politician who just won't suggest taxation of religion because it's "political suicide," again forgoing pragmatism for their country.
THat's cause Judaism is some sort of freaky combination of religion, race and culture. Makes it a pain to classify.
It's really not that different from Christianity. You even have your "Race-Based" Christians, though they're mostly incredibly ignorant white supremacists.
No, it is different. Jews have been isolated (both forcibly and voluntarily) and inbreeding for several millenia. In fact, there are several Jewish genetic diseases because of this (see: Tay-Sachs disease).
Posts
Social Justice conservatives haven't really had a home since the 60s, so they've largely held their noses and voted for Republicans.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
There are also faith-based initiatives to spread "abstinence only" education to african countries.
I fail to see how either of these things are relevant.
I think Catholics tend to hold their noses voting for either party due to beliefs falling far behind both parties lines. Other than that, I fully agree.
At any rate, if the sizable Catholic population did again unify as a progressive movement (or at least 65% of them), wouldn't that put them in the same position as the Evangelicals that people seem to feel oversteps the bounds of religion?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Part of this discussion was about religion influencing government (not neccessarily being intertwined with it). A great deal of what the government does is decide where money goes. There were a lot of characterizations being made about any religious influence on the US federal government being negative or yeilding negative results. I was pointing out that that is not always the case.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Exactly. The scary part is if everyone actually agreed on a single, correct form of "Christianity," we would be fucked.
Luckily there is a greater chance of death by asteroid.
Well I'm not a huge fan of 527's either, but the distinction for me is they are purely political. I view church and school the same way. Church to me IS school for your religion, not the public school system.
Also, most religions are inherently corrupt. I know everyone likes to skip the book of Leviticus but it's worth reading—notice how Yahweh likes salt and seasonings on his delicious sacrifices, and notice how the priests always get a cut. The priests also get a share of the slave-girl war captives when Moses goes to war against the Midianites.
Almost every religion started as a cult with the intent to empower an elite caste of "spiritual professionals" or an individual and his devotees. Yeah, they sometimes have nice morals like "do not steal (from fellow believers)," but it's hardly surprising that religions tend to engage in politics—it's written in their DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
When one particular branch of Christianity gained the support of the Roman emperor and his legions far more Christians were slain as heretics for not conforming to that one narrow view than were ever martyred in the previous centuries.
Can you imagine the fallout in America today if one group of fundies actually got their wish and magically became the church of the American God-Emperor? They would never have the chance to stir up shit with Muslims or renew the age-old Christian tradition of the Pogrom. They would be too busy trying to stamp down (and being stamped down) by the hundred other white-protestant-christian sects who differ with them on minor liturgical issues.
This is because it's a terrible point that requires an ignorance of the issue.
And the world would be a better place.
Don't take me wrong, I'm an atheist and whenever it affects my everyday life (which, me being a gay geneticist, it occasionally does) I hate religion, but I do think it has it's uses. A lot of people don't think for themselves no matter what, so why not give them a version of God that endorses, directly or indirectly, a world that works.
And now we have the restating of the classic opiate of the masses argument.
Which I find disgusting. I will do everything I can to try to teach people about skepticism and free thinking because I, unlike those who subscribe to that worldview of "let em have their fun, poor things," believe that everyone deserves respect and intellectual honesty.
The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are law. And they've repeatedly upheld a separation of church and state.
But, to them, your respect means patronizing and your intellectual honesty means deceit.
I think I'm a bit of a cynic and my mood doesn't help, but it seems to me that a large fraction of the population is hard-wired to steer clear of rational thinking and its consequences, and of taking responsibility for themselves and the world.
Which is why people should be making moral arguments against religion, not "intellectual" arguments.
I fail to see how honestly and cogently expressing my views could be seen as patronizing.
I think that apathy is a big problem for a lot of the developed world, but I am of the opinion that if I could, unprompted, come to the conclusion I have, others can too.
Hello. I am a religious person. I do not find Mike to be patronizing or anything but honest.
Carry on.
Jesus Christ (olol) Qingu, you really have an axe to grind about this shit.
Here, lemme lay it out for you: Modern religions in the western world have almost nothing in common with the Levitican horrors of their past. No one fucking cares how many babies were eaten in the name of Yahweh, no one actually reads those parts of the Bible anymore, and your railing against those parts is irrelevant at best, and derailing at worst.
Please. For the children. Drop it.
Yes, we all understand that religions are based on horrible deeds, texts, and beliefs. But "Christians" in America are more American than Christian by your definition of Christianity, so accept that and let's all move on, k?
You don't mind it when somebody wants to "teach" you scepticism and free thinking?
Nitpicks aside, I wasn't talking about people like you, Podly, with my "opiate for the masses" argument, and I don't think MikeMan is interested in "teaching" you either, so I'm not sure what your point was.
Do carry on yourself as well, though.
Nah, Catholicism encourages philosophy if you aren't a peasant from the 18th century, but even if I was I would hope people would try to teach me their philosophical traditions if I'm not aware of them.
Clever. Do you disagree with my previous posts, which were about large groups whose voting and day to day decisions are influenced by religion? Or did you just feel personally offended by my post and wanted to retaliate?
Somewhat. I think that people are influenced by religion, but most people will be influenced by some authority anyways. The way you said it is that people are willfully ignorant. I just think that they get comfortable being told what to do.
I'm not sure if there's a difference, but the latter part is what I think the problem is, on the societal level, so I suppose I should have phrased my post differently. I definitely don't think that the tendency to avoid personal responsibility or rational thinking applies to religious people alone. In some aspects I think it applies less to them. There are people in all walks of life who live almost like zombies, and I'm offended by that.
Congressional representatives are sworn into office all at once without any books. The congressman who "swore in" on a Koran didn't actually swear in on a Koran, just like the others didn't actually swear in on a Bible. They hold private, unofficial "swearing in" ceremonies afterwards in which they generally choose to swear on said books.
I must note that the faith based funding has been denounced (in a letter to the NYT) by (if my memory is correct) a Rabbinical Council thing (I don't remember the denomination, probably Reform [which is run, I believe, by the votes of all reform rabbis]).
I would also like to point out that almost all of the foreign aid going to religiously affiliated organizations is going to Christian, even in Afghanistan, where people are afraid of being pressured into converting (NYT story from a couple years back)!
Fine then, which brand of Judaism is the state religion of Israel? Is it orthodox Judaism? If so, then why is there a specifically an "orthodox judaism" party, the Shas party? And why are there liberal or secular parties in Israel? And why did the two party system (Likud and Labor) establish Israel on a more or less secular path for the last 60 years. Why are the Kibbutzim that were so important for creating a foundation for Zionism, and are the groundswell of zionist feeling today, steadfastly secular, to the point where 90+ percent of them are secular?
...
Have fun with answering those. Israel is the "Jewish State", but it does hold itself under the basic principles of the first amendment (the right of return, the most blatantly religious part of Israel, is a government program, not founded on religion.
THat's cause Judaism is some sort of freaky combination of religion, race and culture. Makes it a pain to classify.
It's really not that different from Christianity. You even have your "Race-Based" Christians, though they're mostly incredibly ignorant white supremacists.
Christianity is not a race.
Failing that, I'll start a religion.
Neither is Judaism.
And yet.
Not according to any Jews I've ever talked to.
Do you have a Jewish mother? Your a Jew.
Doesn't matter if you never go to synagogue/temple, and eat BLTs with cheese every morning.
In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally.
-- Ulysses S Grant
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Other than the old white religious guys who're just looking out for their churches (instead of pragmatically looking out for their country) and the other type of politician who just won't suggest taxation of religion because it's "political suicide," again forgoing pragmatism for their country.
No, it is different. Jews have been isolated (both forcibly and voluntarily) and inbreeding for several millenia. In fact, there are several Jewish genetic diseases because of this (see: Tay-Sachs disease).
Steam: pazython
Judaism is NOT genetic.
The fact that it originated from a bunch of hillbillies doesn't mean you have to be one of them to join it.