Forums | MacLife

Ra wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Now that doesn't make any sense.

Yes it can does.



I'm not sure where he's going with that either.  Religion can only be good?  By that yardstick, when Mayans were sacrificing humans by tearing out their hearts, that was good, right?  Satanism is good, right?  When worshipers of Baal threw their children to their deaths in pits, it was all hunky-dory? 

And what about Osama Bin Laden's religion?  Islam, so they say, is a religion of peace.  Is the way he practices it good?

Well, that's true in relation the the mayans and the others you have mentioned. However, I assumed that Elton was not referring to the Mayans (I didn't read the article), but to Christianity as an institution. I would think that the Christian religion, is good. The problem is not with religion itself, but with the humans who in the name of religion stray from the right path.

Elton John didn't state that he would ban Christianity, he said, "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings, and it's not really compassionate."

But even if he had, statement was that "religion is can only be good."  Not that "Christianity is can only be good."  I replied to that.

If you're trying to say that "Christianity is can only be good," then once again let's discuss the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, witch hunts, northern Ireland, Hitler's religious upbringing... shall we go on?

The key word in Elton John's quote is "organized," not "religion." Personal religion and faith in a higher power is a fine thing. If everyone chose a holy book from any of the major world religions and tried to abide by it as best they could, the world would be a much better place.

But when religion starts to involve large groups of people and multiple tiers of leadership, faith becomes a power that's easily abused. From Julius, the warrior Pope, and the Spanish Inquisition to the modern-day sex scandals and Islamic jihads, the history of organized religion is riddled with examples of spirtual leaders twisting dogma and using their followers' faith for their own personal gain.

Organized religion is an excellent tool for making perfectly normal people act like puppets, and in that regard, has been used as a force of evil time and time again.

Last edited by Sternum (2006-11-14 6:44 am)

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Pretty much.

Faith is about emotion, not intellectual curiosity.

That then is a naive ignorant position, as there are many religious people with an intellect far greater than anyone here has, and there are also idiots who are athiest.

It is my opinion that religious people supress their intellect in regards to religion. If they did not, they would not be religious.

I have yet to encounter an "idiot athiest".

Note that I am not saying that religious people are stupid or mentally deficient. I know that is not true and it's one of the most troubling aspects of religious belief.

There are plenty of idiotic atheists on the left coast.  I think in areas where there is strong cultural pressure to be religious, only strong-minded independent thinkers will choose otherwise.  In areas with strong cultural pressure in opposition to religion, the opposite may be true.  There is always a prevailing brand of idiocy, and persecuting religion is just another form of it.

Last edited by Metacell (2006-11-14 8:24 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

Everything you just said is also equally true of governments.
Imperfect humans have imperfect organizations, the answer isn't in eliminating them but working to improve them.

My opinion of governments is pretty consistent with my opinion of religions: they should be small and decentralized. Furthermore, their leaders shouldn't be viewed as infallible demigods, and should always be kept under the scrutiny of their followers.

Rational men should never put themselves in the position in which they can be manipulated by their beliefs, regardless of whether its a belief in a higher power or an ideology.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Sternum wrote:

The key word in Elton John's quote is "organized," not "religion."

You need to define "organized" then.  In this view, must views be held but not discussed? 

Or, what if 5 people get together regularly to discuss their similar viewpoint?  Is that organized?   How about 10 people?  50?  At what point is it "organized"?

When they hire a lobbyist?  Though really its hard to see how, for example, Phelp's church counts as any form of organized religion, yet he's certainly one of the worst.  Though I guess he can't have much of an impact.

A great many threads seem to have come together all at once for me.

The libertarian test divides all forms of government into four: liberal, libertarian, conservative, statist.

In constitutional law, if a statute infringes upon a law, it must pass various forms of the "rational basis" test. I say various forms because I really don't want to deal with the finer points of "strict scrutiny."

A law is proposed. It doesn't matter what it is.

The liberal asks: Is there a rational basis for this law?
The Conservative asks: Is there a traditional institution, not necessarily bound by rationality, that is better positioned to deal with the problem.
The Libertarian asks if the government's simulacrum of rationality is really better equipped to deal with the problem than true rationality, which is a trait of individuals, not states.
The statist asks if a rational basis is really necessary

Hank Rearden wrote:

Sternum wrote:

The key word in Elton John's quote is "organized," not "religion."

You need to define "organized" then.  In this view, must views be held but not discussed? 

Or, what if 5 people get together regularly to discuss their similar viewpoint?  Is that organized?   How about 10 people?  50?  At what point is it "organized"?

When loyalty and heresy become important.

jerwin wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Sternum wrote:

The key word in Elton John's quote is "organized," not "religion."

You need to define "organized" then.  In this view, must views be held but not discussed? 

Or, what if 5 people get together regularly to discuss their similar viewpoint?  Is that organized?   How about 10 people?  50?  At what point is it "organized"?

When loyalty and heresy become important.

Heresy can be defined as fairly substantial dissent from the view(s) of the rest of the group.  As such, one who is defined that way is no longer part of the "organization".

So, you're saying that any group is OK until someone dissents?  And that dissent of one makes the rest of the group (who find themselves arguing with the one) an "organized" religion?

Heck, by that standard, MoFT is an "organized" religion on some topics.

And, what if the group is a destructive religious group and suddenly a small group dissents from the destructive views?  Was the group "nonorganized" prior to the dissent and only after the dissent of the new heretics did it become "organized"?

Did it every occur to you that  Trey Parker and Matt Stone might just have political agendas of their own?

jerwin wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

When loyalty and heresy become important.

Heresy can be defined as fairly substantial dissent from the view(s) of the rest of the group.  As such, one who is defined that way is no longer part of the "organization".

So, you're saying that any group is OK until someone dissents?  And that dissent of one makes the rest of the group (who find themselves arguing with the one) an "organized" religion?

Heck, by that standard, MoFT is an "organized" religion on some topics.

And, what if the group is a destructive religious group and suddenly a small group dissents from the destructive views?  Was the group "nonorganized" prior to the dissent and only after the dissent of the new heretics did it become "organized"?

I see MofT as kind of a college bar-- a place to gather and discuss politics in the grand tradition of bullsmurf sessions . There's no organization, per se-- the moderators are somewhat akin to bouncers. Maybe some will see the Ministry as leftist, but that's because leftists post here. If the Moft converts people into leftists, that's because the leftists have their share of orators. I freely recognize that there are other political viewpoints represented here, and the best postings from them have tweaked my own views.

For Moft to become organized in the sense I was trying to imply, It would have to have a creed, and members would be banned for violating this creed.I don't think the "Don't Be a Jerk' rule qualifies as a creed.

bedstuy wrote:

I still can't believe we're discussing the utterances of Elton John.

The utterer uttered a topic that seems to be worth a plethora of new utterances by the uttering masses on this board.

Hank Rearden wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

I still can't believe we're discussing the utterances of Elton John.

The utterer uttered a topic that seems to be worth a plethora of new utterances by the uttering masses on this board.

Thats utter lunacy.