Why the Left despises Religion

[nakedemperor]

No, people left England for many reasons. One of the largest was freedom of religion, not the Separation of Church and state. It was expected by many of the founding fathers that people would use their religion as a moral base for the laws they would create.

The original pilgrims left England because there was a state religion which they did not want to follow; the lack of seperation between church and state precipitated a lack of religious freedom. They are closely tied.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The original pilgrims left England because there was a state religion which they did not want to follow; the lack of seperation between church and state precipitated a lack of religious freedom. They are closely tied.

But see, we have a law allowing people to follow any religion they wish. Your attempt to draw some parallel is misguided.

 

[Said1]

The original pilgrims left England because there was a state religion which they did not want to follow; the lack of seperation between church and state precipitated a lack of religious freedom. They are closely tied.

They are closely tied in that the religious insitutions controlled the state ie: the Church of England. They were one in the same.

 

[acludem]

It ran both directions, the state controlled the church and thus the church controlled the state. The Pilgrims, the Puritans, as well as Catholics, Presbyterians, and Methodists left England for religious freedom. It was on the tradition of allowing people to worship as they choose or to not worship at all that our nation was founded.

acludem

 

[no1tovote4]

The original pilgrims left England because there was a state religion which they did not want to follow; the lack of seperation between church and state precipitated a lack of religious freedom. They are closely tied.

They can be, but not necessarily so. It would not be necessary to have a state religion in order to make some religious practices illegal. If you look at France right now where they make it illegal to dress as some people believe that their religion decrees while in a public school as a student. This is secular dictatorship and not state religion that persecutes people of religion.

Those that left England to come to the US wanted the freedom to choose to be religious as they chose openly without government retribution, but not necessarily a Separation of those in government from their religion. People make moral choices based on their religious belief and create laws from what they believe to be good or bad based on those beliefs and this is what was expected when they created this nation. They did not expect a Government full of automatons that separate themselves magically from their moral base when they become members of the government.

The whole Separation argument wants every law and government action and/or official to somehow be secular in their moral base, creating laws based on a moral code built on their reasoning and moral base rather than the one that those leaders who base theirs on religion. It is a way to force their own secular humanist belief on others without regard to the representative voted for and/or the belief of others. In other words it is the same as establishing secular humanism as the religion of the nation, this was not the aim of the founders when drafting the Establishment clause.

 

[dilloduck]

They can be, but not necessarily so. It would not be necessary to have a state religion in order to make some religious practices illegal. If you look at France right now where they make it illegal to dress as some people believe that their religion decrees while in a public school as a student. This is secular dictatorship and not state religion that persecutes people of religion.

Those that left England to come to the US wanted the freedom to choose to be religious as they chose openly without government retribution, but not necessarily a Separation of those in government from their religion. People make moral choices based on their religious belief and create laws from what they believe to be good or bad based on those beliefs and this is what was expected when they created this nation. They did not expect a Government full of automatons that separate themselves magically from their moral base when they become members of the government.

The whole Separation argument wants every law and government action and/or official to somehow be secular in their moral base, creating laws based on a moral code built on their reasoning and moral base rather than the one that those leaders who base theirs on religion. It is a way to force their own secular humanist belief on others without regard to the representative voted for and/or the belief of others. In other words it is the same as establishing secular humanism as the religion of the nation, this was not the aim of the founders when drafting the Establishment clause.

 

[nakedemperor]

But see, we have a law allowing people to follow any religion they wish. Your attempt to draw some parallel is misguided.

Um, I wasn't drawing a parallel. I was making a statement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Um, I wasn't drawing a parallel. I was making a statement.

and implying a parallel.

Damn, it's like 70 degrees in atlanta today. Sunny too.

 

[Deornwulf]

I addressed the agnosticism in an earlier post. I then lumped it together with atheism for simplicity of notation. As to Christians being able to despise organised religion, this will come down to a matter of semantics regarding the precise definition one has for the concept of organised religion. The way I interpreted Deornwulf to use it, was to effectively equate organised religion with theism, hence his conclusion that the Left despises organised religion due to the Left's aversion to placing a higher authority above them.

The Left despises Organized Religion for attempting to hold them to their beliefs. The Left would like for God to be kept in a box and only be brought out when it suits them, allowing the Left to have totally fluid morals. Organized Religion codifies beliefs and requires the individual to submit to interpretations of morality that might require sacrifice.

 

[Deornwulf]

So if someone kidnapped you and then sold you, those who sold you wouldn't be complicit in kidnapping?

Europeans treated their slaves 'better'; the slave trade to America was an adjunct of an existing trade; these things do not at all alter the viability of the statement "blacks were kidnapped" (removed the agency of the kidnapping to appease you stringent appeal to hisoricity) and "forced to practice Christianity".

There were (and still are) a variety of ways by which one could become a slave in Africa. Some slaves were sold by parents, others were captured in war and choose slavery over death. If you are using the movie "Roots" for your understanding of the slave trade, what it depicted regarding the capture of slaves was mostly fiction.

 

[nakedemperor]

There were (and still are) a variety of ways by which one could become a slave in Africa. Some slaves were sold by parents, others were captured in war and choose slavery over death. If you are using the movie "Roots" for your understanding of the slave trade, what it depicted regarding the capture of slaves was mostly fiction.

Never seen it.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Naked - I think it is perfectly valid to view attacks on Organized Religion by some elements of the left as an immature reaction to an authority figure. Most of the left-wingers with whom I attempt to discuss religion resort to childish and immature diversionary tactics in their argumentation.

Um, you...don't...say.

 

[rei_t_ex]

The Left despises Organized Religion for attempting to hold them to their beliefs.

How can 'the Left' despise something that the vast majority of its members are a part of? That was my initial objection. Fortunately or not, depending on your point of view, there are far too few atheists/agnostics on the face of the Earth - certainly not enough to form anything but a minority of leftists, especially taking into account that some atheists/agnostics are conservative. And only a minority of atheists/agnostics (which are the only people in a position to despise Organised Religion) actually despise it. Roughly the same fraction of atheists/agnostics will despise Organised Religion as the (small) fraction of Christians who will despise Hinduism or Buddhism...

The Left would like for God to be kept in a box and only be brought out when it suits them, allowing the Left to have totally fluid morals.

What is wrong with the ultimate fluidity of morals? At one point it was moral to own slaves, now it is not... At one point it was moral to treat women only slightly better than cattle, now it is not... At one point it was moral to be autocratic tyrant leader of your people by birthright, now it is not...

Organized Religion codifies beliefs and requires the individual to submit to interpretations of morality that might require sacrifice.

There is a big difference between the theoretical possibility to change one's morals when one sees sufficient reason to do so, and te changing of those morals at the first sign of their inconvenience. The first does not imply the second. Sure, such an approach to morals has it dangers. However, I would maintain that it has no more dangers than the choice to obstinately stick to some pre-established morals, for better or for worse, even in the face of strong evidence for their incorrectness. Humans are not perfect - IMHO, it is both naive and pompous to believe that we have it all figured out when it comes to the highly complex issues of morality.

 

['ol Perfessor]

"In which case, people should have to swear allegiance to "god" in the pledge of allegiance, nor should people be forced to pray when they don't believe in prayer, per se. I could care less if the 10 commandments are in a court house; if you don't want it there, don't look at it. It doesn't affect you. But when a teacher asks a student (for example) to acknowledge a god's existence, that's impinging upon his/her choice of "no thank you" when he exercised his right to choose a religion".

Much of what we do and practice as adults is difficult to accept at first. Take, for instance potty training. (I'm sure you remember the fuss you put up about that one!) Why not just go through life crapping in yer drawers?
It feels good!
There is a higher percentage of drawer crappers than mum said!
(Your parents in trying to go about teaching you this basic value obviously know little or nothing).
Then later as our education and understanding increase we realize that the practice of defecating in a water-filled, flushable bowl , wiping, and shunting the effluent away is wise and based upon years-nea eons- of experience in humanities long climb from ignorance.
The same is true for RELIGION ergo ETHICS. As we see in todays society,
( or lack of same). There is no need for Ethics without the absolute target known as Heaven.
The absense of that proverbial moral compass of religion invites ruthless logic like the legal killing of newborns and the "enlightened" 144th month abortions in Holland. The famous story of the holocaust is the lament of the man who"stood still when they came in the night for his neighbor".... and then all stood as still when they came for him. Most religious men realize that there is no sense to a society that makes it up as they go along. Jesus, therefore God, is as much the Word as the man.

 

[Bonnie]

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]"In which case, people should have to swear allegiance to "god" in the pledge of allegiance, nor should people be forced to pray when they don't believe in prayer, per se. I could care less if the 10 commandments are in a court house; if you don't want it there, don't look at it. It doesn't affect you. But when a teacher asks a student (for example) to acknowledge a god's existence, that's impinging upon his/her choice of "no thank you" when he exercised his right to choose a religion".

Much of what we do and practice as adults is difficult to accept at first. Take, for instance potty training. (I'm sure you remember the fuss you put up about that one!) Why not just go through life crapping in yer drawers?
It feels good!
There is a higher percentage of drawer crappers than mum said!
(Your parents in trying to go about teaching you this basic value obviously know little or nothing).
Then later as our education and understanding increase we realize that the practice of defecating in a water-filled, flushable bowl , wiping, and shunting the effluent away is wise and based upon years-nea eons- of experience in humanities long climb from ignorance.
The same is true for RELIGION ergo ETHICS. As we see in todays society,
( or lack of same). There is no need for Ethics without the absolute target known as Heaven.
The absense of that proverbial moral compass of religion invites ruthless logic like the legal killing of newborns and the "enlightened" 144th month abortions in Holland. The famous story of the holocaust is the lament of the man who"stood still when they came in the night for his neighbor".... and then all stood as still when they came for him. Most religious men realize that there is no sense to a society that makes it up as they go along. Jesus, therefore God, is as much the Word as the man.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly right Professor. How do we aspire to
to do good,or act ethical simply because mortal men say so, without religion or faith morals/ethics we have no foundation in truth and no power in consequence.
Just because slavery was legal doesn't make religion wrong, it makes man wrong and man is very fallable

 

[deaddude]

God doesnt seem to have an oppinion on slavery in the bible Bonnie. Excluding some rules for the practice of slavery in the Old Testament. If we get our morality from religion then how do we know that slavery is immoral.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

[QUOTE='ol Perfessor]Much of what we do and practice as adults is difficult to accept at first. Take, for instance potty training. (I'm sure you remember the fuss you put up about that one!) Why not just go through life crapping in yer drawers? It feels good![/QUOTE]

Gaw, I shouldn't drink hot chocolate at the computer again when reading your posts. :shocked: :rotflmao:

 

[no1tovote4]

God doesnt seem to have an oppinion on slavery in the bible Bonnie. Excluding some rules for the practice of slavery in the Old Testament. If we get our morality from religion then how do we know that slavery is immoral.

I may not be Bonnie or even a Christian but I believe that I can answer this for you. In the new Covenant that God made with man in the New Testament he wrote the Law into the hearts of man. You know it is wrong because it has been written into your heart by God. At least according to the Christians that would be why.

As written in Corinthians Chapter 3.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=3&version=31&context=chapter

 

[Bonnie]

God doesnt seem to have an oppinion on slavery in the bible Bonnie. Excluding some rules for the practice of slavery in the Old Testament. If we get our morality from religion then how do we know that slavery is immoral.

Because in the bible it says all men are equal and should be free.......Don't have the exact passage, but that is the essence. We are not to subjugate any man or woman, we are all created in Gods image and likeness. You can go to the Old Testament, but in the New testament which is the one my faith uses the Ten Commandments are broken down to a very simple... love God with your whole heart and soul and love your neighbor the same. If you apply just that to all of life decisions it's very easy to see the difference between right and wrong. Sin occurs because man is human and imperfect, not because god or faith is wrong. I have heard the argument many times that Christianity is bullshit because those that practiced it in the past were evil, corrupt and hyprcritical, but that was man committing sin under the guise of religion.

There is something amazing that happens through prayer, it is knowledge, but also you lose the will to sin because you receive graces. For someone who doesn't pray this makes no sense, it made none to me at one time. So it is the combination of the word of God but also the enlightenment you get through prayer that makes the difference.

 

[nakedemperor]

God doesnt seem to have an oppinion on slavery in the bible Bonnie. Excluding some rules for the practice of slavery in the Old Testament. If we get our morality from religion then how do we know that slavery is immoral.

Giving guidelines from practicing slavery seems to me like its condoning it; in one passage God says to 'treat your slaves humanely' and it another that you can only have them for seven years.

God approves of 7 years of servitude? Heh. That's definitely an opinion.