All religions are dangerous?

[_Moniker]

Plagiarism of JAK -- moved to telestial: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=5240

[_Moniker]

I just want to state that I'm glad JAK posted his source earlier from Wiki to explain dogma to me. I accept that explanation -- I also posted it multiple times in the thread (but that's neither here nor there) -- and am glad we've decided that dogma is what wiki says it is.

Here is JAK's original assertion:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

This is false since according to JAK's source (wiki) Shintoism lacks dogma.

:)

My work here is done........ truth by assertion is unreliable............. truth by assertion is unreliable........ truth by assertion is unreliable........

I AGREE! IT IS! :D

[_JAK]

Hi ROP,

RenegadeOfPhunk stated:
Here in England, Secularism means that religion is a strictly private affair. It cannot - and must not - have any place in the running of government, or any public policy.
This is why nobody approves of a politician raising their religious views in relation to their political life. It goes against the 'secular' culture that is accepted by pretty much everybody over here - religious and non-religious alike.

As I understand it - over in the USA - secularism means something a bit different. It means that no one religion should be given any more official 'preference' over another I.e. no 'national' religion. But it doesn't mean that religion can't be raised in relation to public office and politics. As you state, it seems to be all the time... The version of 'secularism' that the USA runs by doesn't 'disallow' that.

So yeah - I don't know the details of history that lead to that difference. But there is a clear difference in cultural attitude towards religion. http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 656#128656 (for quick reference to your post if you like)

ROP,

Before I begin, let me say that I agree with much of your observation and clearly understand that the world of humans is not a universal culture nor is it ever likely to become so.

That the 21st Century Americans would remain so much more religious than people of the other parts of the economically developed world and that Bible-based fundamentalism would expand its influence at the expense of more moderate views would have seemed implausible to American intellectuals and scientists even at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Scientists and intellectuals in the early 1900s surely did not expect secularism to replace religion in mainstream America. But, they did think that the more rationally inclined forms of religion would replace not only the biblically literal creeds but the many strange sects and offshoots of Christianity. It was always unlikely that America would become as secular as been called post-Christian Europe. The absence of a state-established church from America’s experience as a nation meant that Americans would almost never be obligated to choose between faith and citizenship.

On only one occasion when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints agreed in 1896 to renounce polygamy as the price of statehood for heavily Mormon Utah did the government explicitly and permanently require a religious denomination to compromise a central belief in deference to public consensus. Even so the Mormons’ polygamous past continues to surface unpredictably and mar the image of middle-class probity that the church elders have worked to foster.

It is surely true that the battle over a woman’s right to choose which cannot be separated from the late 20th Century feminism created a unifying cause for right-wing Protestants and right-wing Catholics. A large majority of Americans in 1973 favored liberalization of state abortion laws, and that public opinion had changed in a relatively brief period of time.

While the Supreme court decision may have been ahead of public opinion, it was in line with a general trend favoring greater choice and compassion for women coping with unwanted pregnancies.

I have read that between the fundamentalists and the secularists lies a much larger group of religious centrists or moderates, but it’s not entirely clear what it means to be a religious moderate in the United states today. This addresses your point and observation.

While I can’t cite the source here, I have also read that 63% of Americans believe that the will of the people, not the Bible, should exert the greatest influence on American law and government. On the other hand, when centrists are added to the fundamentalists, 75% of Americans believe in a supernatural supreme being who guides the destiny of individuals and nations.

The centrists believers approve of religion in general, but, they disapprove of extreme positions like G.W. Bush’s imposition of a religious veto on embryonic stem-cell research (and other faith-based conclusions). Yet this group has generally been no political match for the true believer mentality of the fundamentalists, and religious moderates have frequently followed the path of least resistance and allowed the fundamentalists and anti-modernists have their way on public issues.

The tendency of the religious centrists to accept compromise solutions, with no regard for consistency is one explanation for the seemingly absurdity of public support, by a two to one majority, for the teaching of both creationism and evolution as equals in public schools.

Fundamentalists are effective at getting their way because religion forms the absolute, immovable core of their lives. Unlike religious moderates who want to have it both ways (God and science, belief in eternal life, and the medical pursuit of every means to prolong earthly life).

For Catholics in the Scalia mold, the prospect that embryonic stem-cell research might help cure them of Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s means nothing next to the belief that God through their church has said no.

Cultural and moral issues tied to religion such as these present “Dangers of Religion.” Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices are now Roman Catholic.

Thank you for your insights and perspective from outside the USA.

(just no more time now)


JAK

[_JAK]

I just want to state that I'm glad JAK posted his source earlier from Wiki to explain dogma to me. I accept that explanation -- I also posted it multiple times in the thread (but that's neither here nor there) -- and am glad we've decided that dogma is what wiki says it is.

Here is JAK's original assertion:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

This is false since according to JAK's source (wiki) Shintoism lacks dogma.

:)

My work here is done........ truth by assertion is unreliable............. truth by assertion is unreliable........ truth by assertion is unreliable........

I AGREE! IT IS! :D

marg stated:
Just a quick note. What I said was according to Prof. Oden an accepted def'n of religion is that all religions must have supernatural beings as part of the mythology or communication system. Shintoism fits within that definition. If all religions have supernatural being mythology then at a minimum all religions communicate dogma of supernatural being mythology. I don't think the word "dogma" entails that all who participate in that communication system/religious group believe all the stories relating to the supernatural beings. Dogma in religion is not restricted to only the supernatural. I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all. I don't think that is an essence in the meaning of the word "dogma".

marg’s post

Moniker,

marg has previously refuted your claim that Shintoism lacks dogma. In addition to the one reference you mention (which I posted), I also posted:

This Reference. In that, I detailed the breadth of dogma.

And again you misrepresent my post by leaving out what was detailed analysis in that post. It’s important to keep in mind that dogma is essentially claim absent evidence for the claim.

In this definition from a source you accepted, we see the following:

Shinto is commonly translated as "The Way of the Gods". And,

Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities…

Claim for “the Gods” is a claim absent evidence. Shinto asserts Gods. That is dogma or doctrine affirmation.

Hence your statement fails to establish that Shintoism is without doctrine. Claiming Gods is doctrine absent evidence.

It’s generally irrelevant to the focus of the original issues which remain unrefuted.

JAK

[_Moniker]

I just want to state that I'm glad JAK posted his source earlier from Wiki to explain dogma to me. I accept that explanation -- I also posted it multiple times in the thread (but that's neither here nor there) -- and am glad we've decided that dogma is what wiki says it is.

Here is JAK's original assertion:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

This is false since according to JAK's source (wiki) Shintoism lacks dogma.

:)

My work here is done........ truth by assertion is unreliable............. truth by assertion is unreliable........ truth by assertion is unreliable........

I AGREE! IT IS! :D

marg stated:
Just a quick note. What I said was according to Prof. Oden an accepted def'n of religion is that all religions must have supernatural beings as part of the mythology or communication system. Shintoism fits within that definition. If all religions have supernatural being mythology then at a minimum all religions communicate dogma of supernatural being mythology. I don't think the word "dogma" entails that all who participate in that communication system/religious group believe all the stories relating to the supernatural beings. Dogma in religion is not restricted to only the supernatural. I don't think the word "dogma" relating to religion entails all participants of a system must believe it all. I don't think that is an essence in the meaning of the word "dogma".

marg’s post

Moniker,

marg has previously refuted your claim that Shintoism lacks dogma. In addition to the one reference you mention (which I posted), I also posted:

Really? I don't see it that way. I refuted her claim that Shintoism has any gods that must be believed in or that the Japanese are descended from Kami. She NEVER came back to my last points on dogma and she need not 'cause I've quoted HER saying there must be a core figure in a religion that creates dogma -- there are a few quotes of her saying that -- I already posted one that relates to Christ and Christianity. YOU supplied your OWN source on dogma that says there MUST be a core or "authoratitive" belief and there is no doubt -- YOUR SOURCE!

There is no belief that is a core component of Shinto -- there is nothing there that can NOT be doubted! I'm going on YOUR source, JAK!

Are we relying on Marg's understanding of Shintoism, by the way?

This Reference. In that, I detailed the breadth of dogma.

And again you misrepresent my post by leaving out what was detailed analysis in that post. It’s important to keep in mind that dogma is essentially claim absent evidence for the claim.

Ah! That is a new definition? EARLIER you posted dogma from wiki and that is NOT what you stated. So ANYTHING that is believed without evidence is DOGMA? This is absurd!

My belief that my kids are going to be invited to a birthday party a few times this month (it usually happens) is DOGMA? That's RELIGIOUS dogma???

In this definition from a source you accepted, we see the following:

Shinto is commonly translated as "The Way of the Gods". And,

Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities…

THERE ARE NO GODS IN SHINTOISM! I have said that numerous times! It is an INCORRECT translation. There is NO omnipotent being in Shintoism! NONE! NONE! NONE!

Claim for “the Gods” is a claim absent evidence. Shinto asserts Gods. That is dogma or doctrine affirmation.

There are no "gods" in Shintoism. What god must be believed in to practice Shintoism? Name just ONE!

Hence your statement fails to establish that Shintoism is without doctrine. Claiming Gods is doctrine absent evidence.

It’s generally irrelevant to the focus of the original issues which remain unrefuted.

JAK

Hmm... you show me what God (omnipotent) being there is in Shintoism that can not be put off into the dustbin. Earlier you said dogma was that the Japanese are descended from Gods (this is incorrect -- they descended from Kami) and I explained that this mythology is not necessary. So explain what is the ESSENTIAL belief that a Shintoist MUST believe to be a Shintoist -- WHAT deity must they believe in? What mythology MUST they believe in?

[Guest]

JAK provided this in his last post that dealt with dogma. He wanted to educate me on dogma and supplied the below which I've already repeatedly put into the thread.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 784#128784

This is from a source which I'll give you at the end:

Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings.

Rejection of dogma is considered heresy in certain religions, and may lead to expulsion from the religious group.

JAK:Catholics also hold as dogma the decisions of fourteen later councils and two decrees promulgated by popes exercising papal infallibility (see immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary). Protestants to differing degrees affirm portions of these dogmata, and often rely on denomination-specific 'Statements of Faith' which summarize their chosen dogmata (see, e.g., Eucharist).

In Islam, the dogmatic principles are contained in the aqidah.

Within many Christian denominations, "dogma" is instead referred to as "doctrine". source

Are you now disagreeing with what you asked me to consider? Are you NOW saying that dogma can be "contradicted", can be "doubted" and there is not a necessary "core principle"? This completely contradicts the source you provided to explain religious dogma, JAK.

If you truly believe that core principles are not necessary, then again, a Christian doesn't have to believe in Christ.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

That the 21st Century Americans would remain so much more religious than people of the other parts of the economically developed world and that Bible-based fundamentalism would expand its influence at the expense of more moderate views would have seemed implausible to American intellectuals and scientists even at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Which only goes to show the fundamental implausibility of much of what early 20th century navel gazing "intellectuals" thought regarding the nature and structure of religion and religious experience. As Paul Johnson has remarked, the withering away of religion has been "the great nonevent" of the 20th century. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a subset of Evangelical Protestantism, and does not define conservative Protestant ideas and theology.

On only one occasion when the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints agreed in 1896 to renounce polygamy as the price of statehood for heavily Mormon Utah did the government explicitly and permanently require a religious denomination to compromise a central belief in deference to public consensus. Even so the Mormons’ polygamous past continues to surface unpredictably and mar the image of middle-class probity that the church elders have worked to foster.

You could at least try some degree of intellectual honesty and rigor here JAK...at least try. There are no Mormons who practice polygamy, and the present Church has nothing to do with it. The polygamous groups are not Mormons, and have no connection to the Church at all, except in the strictly historical sense of a founder somewhere having once come from, or had ancestors who came from, the Church. Nothing can be "marred" by groups who have no cultural, social, or theological connection to the Church and who's only association is as a tenuous historical pseudopod. I've never met a non-member who questioned me regarding the various polygamous cults who have a historical founder figure connected at some point to the Church--except one, and he was satisfied by my arguments regarding them.

It is surely true that the battle over a woman’s right to choose which cannot be separated from the late 20th Century feminism created a unifying cause for right-wing Protestants and right-wing Catholics. A large majority of Americans in 1973 favored liberalization of state abortion laws, and that public opinion had changed in a relatively brief period of time.

The above is utterly irrelevant to anything unless you believe, as most leftists of JAK's kind do, that traditional religious believers (and the extension of their beliefs and concerns into political questions when moral and ethical issues are thrust onto the national stage though in the process of leftist Kulturkampf), have, because their political views may be influenced by their theological beliefs, no business participating in the political life of their society, and no business resisting the prerogatives and programs of Kulturkampf. This is the traditional Marcusian idea that free speech and political participation are only for the Left.

JAK tendentiously omits the fact that the public support for the ERA was based primarily in the vague, nebulous, and evasive language of the amendment, language that sugar coated the far reaching nature of the actual ends sought by the amendment, and the precedents that actually would have been set for future legislation and litigation by the amendment's language and implications. The ERA's governing principles were rooted in the cultural Marxist ideology of gender warfare and unisex societal structure of radical feminism, and is anti-Judeo/Christian and anti-democratic to the core, as are all forms of leftist ideology, regardless of emphasis or deemphasis.

JAK also seems to believe that the United States is a democracy, and that the masses are a legitimate barometer of what is morally and politically right and appropriate. Any philosophy which bases its rightness on democratic mass approval should be suspect on its face.

It should also not be forgotten that no such "right" to choose to kill one's offspring in vitro for no other reason than lifestyle convenience (abortion as a form of birth control, the overwhelming use to which Roe has been put since 1973) exists in the Constitution at all. This was, as is well known, a whole cloth ad hoc creation of the Court.

While the Supreme court decision may have been ahead of public opinion, it was in line with a general trend favoring greater choice and compassion for women coping with unwanted pregnancies.

There was no mass clamoring among a clear majority of Americans at that time for convenience abortion on demand. The squealing and wailing for this kind of "social change" came from a shrill and vocal minority of Americans and the extreme left wing special interest groups who were their aiders, abettors, and inciters. Further, the Court decision in Rove v Wade is well understood to have been very bad law (the primary arguments, indeed, involve no legal reasoning at all) and, indeed, was not adjudication so much as judicial legislation, something the court had no business doing in any case. The real crux of the matter, a crux that leftists do not, at any cost, want to face head on, is that the abortion question had no place in the courts in the first place, and despite the fundamental constitutional illegitimacy of Roe, the courts are the only place the Left has been historically able to substantially advance its agenda precisely because of the court's fundamentally undemocratic nature.

I have read that between the fundamentalists and the secularists lies a much larger group of religious centrists or moderates, but it’s not entirely clear what it means to be a religious moderate in the United states today. This addresses your point and observation.

These terms "centrist" and "moderate" are utterly without meaning unless one attaches to them some substantive ideological or philosophical content. As to voting patters, "centrist" and "moderate" has normally meant "liberal", which is, most likely, why JAK uses them.

While I can’t cite the source here, I have also read that 63% of Americans believe that the will of the people, not the Bible, should exert the greatest influence on American law and government. On the other hand, when centrists are added to the fundamentalists, 75% of Americans believe in a supernatural supreme being who guides the destiny of individuals and nations.

What all this citing of the popular will and fear and loathing of religious conservatives boils down to, at the end of the day, is what the Left has been seeking for over thirty years: a religious (actually, ideological) test determining fitness to participate in the political life of the country. Whatever x percent of the population thinks (and no one of any seriousness within the conservative movement is claiming that the country should be run directly with the Bible as the primary legal text), the Constitution is silent upon the ultimate philosophical principles upon which one's voting behavior is predicated.

Further, JAK can't have it both ways. He uses democratic majority opinion when it supports his leftist policy prescriptions, but fears that very same democracy if it appears that conservatives might by in the majority.

The centrists believers approve of religion in general, but, they disapprove of extreme positions like G.W. Bush’s imposition of a religious veto on embryonic stem-cell research

Embryonic stem cells are a scientific dead end, with no known diseases having ever been cured by, or presently having any plausible evidence that they might be cured by, embryonic stem cells. The entire continued clamoring for embryonic stem cell research (as opposed to adult stem cells, where all the actual scientific promise lies, but which has no ideological value) is purely ideological, and comes from the cultural Left, which has a deep stake in justifying and validating the taking of embryonic life as a moral crutch for the convenience abortion culture of death it has already created but which is still highly controversial among a large segment of Americans.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1319/101/

Fundamentalists are effective at getting their way because religion forms the absolute, immovable core of their lives.

Yes, just as religion forms the absolute, immovable core of the life of a serious Latter Day Saint, and just as leftist ideology forms the absolute, immovable core of the life of the average Liberal. Indeed, for the leftist, politics and political activism is, precisely, a religious experience, and secular humanism, or liberalism, is his/her religion.

For Catholics in the Scalia mold, the prospect that embryonic stem-cell research might help cure them of Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s means nothing next to the belief that God through their church has said no.

You're intellectual shallowness becomes more breathtaking with every post JAK. The evidence that embryonic stem cells will ever, based upon the present state of the research, cure Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s, let alone the common cold, is effectively zero. The questions regarding embryonic stem cells are ethical, not scientific, and concern the question of whether, just because science can do something, it therefore should do it. Because the Liberal has, effectively, no moral center, these questions appear moot when placed alongside the material convenience and ego gratification of the atomistized, autonomous individual, the "new man" of the "New Left" of the sixties.

Cultural and moral issues tied to religion such as these present “Dangers of Religion.” Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices are now Roman Catholic.

"Are you now, or have you ever been, religious?" Please surrender your voter registration card as you leave the building.

Modern Liberalism is fascism ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it. It may be a smiley faced form, but fascism nonetheless. Socialism (modern "Liberalism") is fascism, and all are forms of coercive, anti-democratic, anti-individualist collectivism, and all are opposed vehemently to the natural family and Judeo/Christian concepts of marriage, gender roles, sexuality, and morality structure.

[_Moniker]

Geez Coggies, took you long enough! This thread wasn't complete until you made an appearance.

I had faith you would! :)

[_Coggins7]

I haven't posted for around two weeks now, and I don't intend to post as much as in the past. Further, I'm choosing my fights much more judiciously now, and will not be engaging certain people as I've done in the past.

I'm making some substantial changes to my posting behavior and style, which will involve not only avoiding the kind of flaming slash and burn argument I've allowed myself to be sucked into in the past, as well as ignoring a number of posters who who bring out the were in the wolf.

So, I probably won't be here as much, but the time I do spend will be more "quality time", to borrow an old liberal platitude.

[_Moniker]

I haven't posted for around two weeks now, and I don't intend to post as much as in the past. Further, I'm choosing my fights much more judiciously now, and will not be engaging certain people as I've done in the past.

I'm making some substantial changes to my posting behavior and style, which will involve not only avoiding the kind of flaming slash and burn argument I've allowed myself to be sucked into in the past, as well as ignoring a number of posters who who bring out the were in the wolf.

So, I probably won't be here as much, but the time I do spend will be more "quality time", to borrow an old liberal platitude.

Well, I'm happy to see you here. I know we have had some back and forth posts in the past-- most of them in jest. I think that's wise advice to ignore posters that push buttons -- I'm attempting to do that as well. Hope your courses are going well. Take care.