Isn't there an old saying that states there are two subjects that are supposed to be "taboo" in polite conversation, politics and religion?
I submit, from how some of the threads in this "Politics" forum develop, that at least half of that saying is being proven to be true. Now, do we really want to get into religious bickering?
Having said that, it is observable through all of recorded history, and from the observations of Anthropologists, that a "Chief" (or Government) generally defines the bare minimum of acceptable behavior in a society. Right along with that "Chief" is, typically, a "Medicine Man"/Priest/Wise Man who is generally tasked with negotiating/explaining the unknown, the unseen, the unexplainable AND with defining a philosophy that tasks the society to strive to be ABOVE the "acceptable behavior" level as defined by the Government/Chief/King.
This, for lack of a better term, helps set the mores, morals, level of interpersonal interaction (Politeness?) that a society is not necessarily REQUIRED by the State... but is required for a reasonably peaceful society (and to present a better "judgement" of one's self in the hereafter. If that exists.) As such, it also defines a certain sence of moral necessity toward keeping the society in co-operation with it's various elements, if not in uniform harmony.
If, as it is posh for the basic Liberal Thinking soul, to reject Religion altogether.... then, I submit, they are also rejecting the "moral philosophy" that goes along with it. Then, from the above, the "rejector" is only limited to behavior that the State says is the "bare minimum" of acceptable behavior. This has some negative affects. 1) It gives greater lisence to the Lib Thinker to pretty much do what he/she wants, under the guise of "personal freedom", but really becomes a self centered existance. 2) It requires the Government to pass "Laws" that tries to balance individual freedom with those mores, morals and simple politeness necessary to keep a peaceful society intact.
I think the case can be made that we have evolved more toward a completely self centered society at the expense of a society that makes every effort to "Live and let live", demonstrate tolerance for those who are "different" and, at the extreme, "minds one's own business". (MY definition of freedom.) I think this can be shown right here in this thread..... Religion is a personal matter, yet there are those who will ridicule Religion, ridicule Conservative thinking, denegrate those who try to examine the "faults" of Lib Thinking. This is NOT how a society of divergent cultures, peoples and races learns to "get along" in that society. It becomes a collection of warring camps, each interested it getting it's own way.... often at the expense of another group. I think THAT is also easily observed, particularly in Politics, as each camp tries to enact Laws favorable to THEIR OWN ideal of "the way it SHOULD be", rather than accepting the philosophical concept that "one size does NOT fit all." (Again, a perfect definition of personal freedom.)
As for Religion, per se, there are three very good points going for it, in general. 1) It sets a "moral standard" above and beyond what the Government (ANY Government) can possibly Legislate into existance. 2) For many it acts as a comfort for the negative things that happen to us along this unpredictable thing called life. 3) It helps one form a philosophy of life, a setting of the standards that YOU, personally, ascribe to.... perhaps to the point of being the definition of an "honorable man".
Rhetorical musings only. Not trying to "pick a fight" here.
Myself, I ascribe to the basic teachings of Buddism, at heart. Mainly because it teaches pacifism (ALWAYS a "good thing" as it pertains to society overall, and international relations as an extension.), encourages the seeking of knowledge, wisdom, understanding and, frankly, is closer to a Moral Philosophy of self conduct rather than an organized system of rituals and beliefs which rely on "Faith" rather than examination of reality. OH, I "attend" Catholic Church, mainly because my wife decided to become one ten years ago AND it allows me to be active in organizations that "help" those in need. (.... and there isn't a Buddist Temple around here. "In the Bible Belt?" Not bloody likely. LOL!)
GG
P.S. ...and to preclude anyone (and you know there will be at least ONE who will be so tempted) from trying to discount "pacifism" from the mouth of a "gun nut". I will merely state that even the Buddism Monks were forced to devise a means of self defence, for exactly the same reasons why we arm ourselves.
Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)
53Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Ringo, I'm very glad that you have beliefs in the supernatural to comfort you when all about you seems to be falling apart. That's what religion is good for. However, religion is a BELIEF system, not fact. The Bible has no more validity than any of the other "sacred writings" of different religions: the Torah, the Koran, the Mabinogion, the Epic of Gilgamesh...All are simply attempts by man to explain the inexplicable.
