Freedom of Religion

[Parodite]

Religion is more than theology and doctrine. I could come close to agreeing with freedom from doctrine and dogma, but religion has social and psychological aspects that are not avoidable.

Quite so. And the question is as always: what are those aspects, how they function.

Neanderthal man buried their dead with bouquets of flowers and grave goods. Religion is an integrally human concern, and it touches all of the classical psychological defense mechanisms. 'Freedom from religion' is largely reaction formation, intellectualism and denial.

I will assume that you favor religion to be more free internally and how it interacts with non-/other religious elements in society at large. A sort of "I doubt but believe nonetheless" attitude that is also more tolerant to others who doubt and/or believe differently. Less attached to and dependent on doctrine and dogma and certainly less fear-driven. So what is the future of this evolving religion? Does it evolve beyond recognition almost? When does it stop being a religion or "religion"?

I believe that concepts and their definitions evolve naturally. Some remain but what they mean changes big time, to the point of becoming "meaningless", i.e. where a new concept/word is perhaps needed to cover the new content and to prevent confusion.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

[Parodite]

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

Fair enough. How far did you get on that journey? Did you ask that question and define the reason you were asking it? Did you puzzle out an answer yet?

[Nonc Hilaire]

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

Fair enough. How far did you get on that journey? Did you ask that question and define the reason you were asking it? Did you puzzle out an answer yet?

Asked and answered. Freedom from religion is not possible. Religion is an inherent to humanity.

[Parodite]

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

Fair enough. How far did you get on that journey? Did you ask that question and define the reason you were asking it? Did you puzzle out an answer yet?

Asked and answered. Freedom from religion is not possible. Religion is an inherent to humanity.

To be sure.. what was the question for you exactly and why were you asking it? I see no head or tail in what you are saying.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

Fair enough. How far did you get on that journey? Did you ask that question and define the reason you were asking it? Did you puzzle out an answer yet?

Asked and answered. Freedom from religion is not possible. Religion is an inherent to humanity.

To be sure.. what was the question for you exactly and why were you asking it? I see no head or tail in what you are saying.

Not my thread. I am simply denying the insular notion that "freedom from religion" is a sensible concept.

[Endovelico]

Freedom from religion is not possible. Religion is an inherent to humanity.

So is violence. Let's make it legal...and tax free...

[Parodite]

Not my thread. I am simply denying the insular notion that "freedom from religion" is a sensible concept.

Yes, and I was just wondering what you meant by that. The fog persists but at least Endo made clear what he meant to say with it which is pretty straightforward.

[Simple Minded]

Well said Nonc & Yukon.

People are always going to live life with a certain amount of faith. None have the mental capacity to continually assess and evaluate the infinite amount of variables we are constantly encountering.

Faith that.... life is inherently fair or unfair.... people are inherently good or bad...... the guy in the car coming towards me on a two way street won't cross the non-existent barrier...... the bridge won't collapse when I drive across the river..... political party X is better than Y....... my culture is better than your culture.... endless examples.

There is even a website where the preachers & the proselytizers practice their respective trades:

www.onthenatureofthings.net

I don't recommend it for those of little faith however....

[Parodite]

SM, I think you have not payed attention what Nonc was saying:

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

So.. before you want to make statements about religion or ask for a definition, question the way others may use the term.. you better be sure yourself you defined the reason why you ask. Now Nonc says he asked... and even got an answer, but is not willing to explain anything much. You too seem to have an answer, so following Nonc's recipe it begs the question how you defined your question on religion. Or faith.. or.. in Kmich's style of explaining himself: whatever.

I'll throw in a bitchy theory why people like Nonc and Kmich are unable to give reason nor definition nor anything much other than vaguenesses or references to what others have said: there is nothing there.

[Nonc Hilaire]

An athiest, a shaman, a Buddhist and a Roman Catholic priest all walk into a bar. All have different definitions of religion.

One thing they all have in common is a relationship with something supernatural, but that is too broad to be a definition. The definition you and Endo seem to using is Western, and has a lot of suppositions that presume a Western style god which are meaningless to a Buddhist or animist.

[Simple Minded]

SM, I think you have not payed attention what Nonc was saying:

The philosophy of religion is full of competing definitions. Religion is one of those questions where the reason you ask must be defined before you even begin to puzzle out an answer.

So.. before you want to make statements about religion or ask for a definition, question the way others may use the term.. you better be sure yourself you defined the reason why you ask. Now Nonc says he asked... and even got an answer, but is not willing to explain anything much. You too seem to have an answer, so following Nonc's recipe it begs the question how you defined your question on religion. Or faith.. or.. in Kmich's style of explaining himself: whatever.

I'll throw in a bitchy theory why people like Nonc and Kmich are unable to give reason nor definition nor anything much other than vaguenesses or references to what others have said: there is nothing there.

Parodite,

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.....

I don't think you have a bitchy theory, you are honestly stating your perception. Kudos for your honesty!

Think in terms of personal perception. Fred reads the Bible and it changes him forever. Bill reads the Bible and thinks it's trash, but find the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching to be supremely meaningful. You think there is nothing in religion. I think you are all correct. Weird huh?

When you go shopping for a tractor or a wife, don't you have some specifications you are looking to fulfill? Other wise, how are you going to know when you find the right one?

My brother ran a body & fender shop for years. One day one of his customers spots a plywood board my brother uses to deposit the small scraps of Bondo or putty that you have left over after several wipes of the applicator. The customer wants to buy it. He is a professor of art at a local college. My brother's junk, someone else's work of art.

Perceptions vary! Seems to be a personal thang!

One of the best quotes ever: "Disagreeing with another man's religion or politics is like saying his wife is ugly and his children are stupid."

Go forth in peace, my brother.

[Parodite]

Parodite,

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.....

I don't think you have a bitchy theory, you are honestly stating your perception. Kudos for your honesty!

Thanks bro!

Think in terms of personal perception. Fred reads the Bible and it changes him forever. Bill reads the Bible and thinks it's trash, but find the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching to be supremely meaningful. You think there is nothing in religion. I think you are all correct. Weird huh?

Not really what this little storm in a tea cup was about. From where I sit this is what happened and I will rephrase a bit:

Endo stated a question: "Will we ever be free..from religion? " This resulted in a misunderstanding with Kmich and Nonc who believed him to mean something like: "Will there be day when nobody will be religious and practice religion anymore?" Endo clarified himself that this was not the issue for him, but rather the question and hope that one day there will be no religious people anymore who interfere with his private life telling him how to behave. In support of Endo I supplied some examples where religious people in past and present indeed interfere(d) big time in other peoples lives, both physically and emotionally-mentally. I would term such things as "undesirable excesses and side effects of religious doctrine and tradition."

Now following the above, Kmich made a sorta funny point that is also full of irony: in his view, Endo has no right to be bothered by or judge religious people who misbehave if he is not personally a victim of their behavior. What Endo says simply doesn't count if it is not a personal direct experience, according to Kmich.

The irony being of course, that if one follows Kmich's own standards where one is not allowed to have any opinion about things that are not a first hand witness or personal experience.. he himself is guilty as Hell. Was he there with Jesus 2000 years ago, the people who wrote down the gospels? Of course not.. So he disallows others the privileges he happily applies to himself. Now I'm not saying that Kmich has no right to be all on fire about people and things he has no first hand experience of but that somehow inspire him... and he values the tradition he grew up with people who neither had and have any direct experience of the events and ideas told in their 2000 years old stories, but who use those stories to create and shape their own in a religious community. All fine! But then it would be only fair if Dr. Kmich allows Endo and others to do the same: to be affected by lives, stories, ideas and experiences of other people.. miles and eons away from your own. And of course.. as you correctly noted.. for John the story and persona of Jesus represents voodoo hallucinating bull crap, whilst for Jack it is of the highest value, of beauty and all.

As for my short back and forth with Nonc, not much else happened than Nonc making certain statements that I didn't understand. I asked for clarifications. They didn't come. Now he also "explains" himself by stating that whoever are in one room... their definitions of religion may differ.. but they all have a relationship with the supernatural.

Yes you guessed it.. I'm tempted to ask Nonc wtf he means with the italic part. The supernatural? How so? What? Why? Natural->supernatural.. hu? Fact is that Nonc won't try to clarify.. because he can't. "The supernatural" is a word that apparently signifies great meaning for him but it cannot be communicated. This always is a red flag to me. Kinda intrinsic to the supernatural I guess.. it never is where the natural operates. It is not there. It is-not.

[Simple Minded]

parodite,

Yeah, I caught all that. I just figured I would sidestep the hypocrisy and keep it on a personal level. I really don't think you should love my wife more than you love your own.

One's faith (religious or political) is a very personal thing, and those who go the routes of:
1. Show me the proof of your faith...... or
2. This is the proof of my faith...... or
3. This is why you should like mine better than yours.....
don't seem to know the definition of "faith," and almost always seem to be the kind of people who can not be spoken to anyway. Maybe that is god's gift to the rest of us.

Those who feel the need to sell, often are in search of confirmation to bolster themselves. If I can get someone to agree with me, I must be right, right?

I also enjoy the fact that those who demean the faith of others, often can't recognize their own blind spots and prejudices.

If the greatest right is the right to be wrong, then the right to be left alone can't be far behind. How to balance freedom of speech with "nananananana I can't hear you" is a tough one.

I have also heard it said that those who cry the loudest about being persecuted are the first to persecute others. I have noticed that those who want others to shut up and leave them alone, have a very tough time turning off their megaphone and stepping down off their soap boxes.

I think it is good practice to beware anyone trying to sell you on their opinion, political or religious!!

Luckily, we don't have anyone like that posting at OTNOT!

[Nonc Hilaire]

Freedom from politics!

[Parodite]

parodite,

Yeah, I caught all that. I just figured I would sidestep the hypocrisy and keep it on a personal level. I really don't think you should love my wife more than you love your own.

That remains to be seen. Let's meet up at the swing club church!

[Simple Minded]

Freedom from politics!

Exactly. One man's politics is another man's religion.

Luckily, almost everyone agrees on politics and religion...... for about an hour a week!

[Simple Minded]

parodite,

Yeah, I caught all that. I just figured I would sidestep the hypocrisy and keep it on a personal level. I really don't think you should love my wife more than you love your own.

That remains to be seen. Let's meet up at the swing club church!

as long as they don't demand a tithe......

[Simple Minded]

It seems obvious, as long as there is a demand for salvation, some one is going to be selling it.

Luckily, the customers seem to demand only two flavors, political & theological.

Both are low fat and organic.

But mine is always going to be better than yours....... too bad for your church/party.

[Endovelico]

It seems obvious, as long as there is a demand for salvation, some one is going to be selling it.

Yes, and in a free society they are entitled to do it. What they may not is forcing it down any person's throat...

[Nonc Hilaire]

It seems obvious, as long as there is a demand for salvation, some one is going to be selling it.

Yes, and in a free society they are entitled to do it. What they may not is forcing it down any person's throat...

What is being forced down your throat?

[Endovelico]

It seems obvious, as long as there is a demand for salvation, some one is going to be selling it.

Yes, and in a free society they are entitled to do it. What they may not is forcing it down any person's throat...

What is being forced down your throat?

Once more, it doesn't have to be MY throat, for me to react and condemn it... But I guess I'm wasting my breath...

[Yukon Cornelius]

You're wasting your breath, because you keep insisting on a false dichotomy.

We all understand the neo-pagan agenda of condemning "religion" as a rhetorical ruse/device. But with the rebuttal to the recent rhetorical overreach of the New Atheists -- thinking people are past that.

It's a straightforward matter to use history, scholarship, and logic to reason that Christianity is true, just as it's a straightforward matter to argue that the ontological argument is false. Each has it's logical implication for society -- neither is escapable.

[Endovelico]

You're wasting your breath, because you keep insisting on a false dichotomy.

We all understand the neo-pagan agenda of condemning "religion" as a rhetorical ruse/device. But with the rebuttal to the recent rhetorical overreach of the New Atheists -- thinking people are past that.

It's a straightforward matter to use history, scholarship, and logic to reason that Christianity is true, just as it's a straightforward matter to argue that the ontological argument is false. Each has it's logical implication for society -- neither is escapable.

That's not what I have been arguing about. I don't care about religion but I do not object to people being religious. I object to religious people trying to impose their views on others, trying to force them to conform to specific religious rules of behaviour. For instance, I object to orthodox Jews stoning cars driving around on saturday, or Saudi authorities forbidding a foreign woman from driving a car, or any other such things...

[Yukon Cornelius]

Endovelico: Like Nunc quipped, you'd be better off wishing for '"freedom from politics."

Someone's Ox is going to get gored -- you just have to fight to make sure it's not your own. Xians in America are finding this out the hard way. Everything is political, everything is moral, everything is cultural, everything is religious.