All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[biothlebop]

Helm's post (found the question why America is a religious country interesting):
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a397/dellgines/InGodWeTrust_s.jpg
As I see it, it is because religion is such a integrated part of the American society and way of life. It is in the constitution and can be used as a leverage/tool for other purposes such as politics. It gives unity in a huge country with contradicting opinions.

But why religion and especially Christianity is such a big deal in America is still somewhat unclear to me (do common people really truly really believe in God)?
Americans in general seem aware of their rights and eager to use/defend them, and the country seems to have a very survival of the fittest/opportunist mentality. As I have understood, most things in America revolve around money - good healthcare, education, services have a price tag.
Guess religion gives some sort of different/lasting security that fickle dollars/materialism (now you have them, now you don't) cannot. I'd like to hear anyone who knows more about this/has ideas of their own.

As I have understood, creationism/ID is only openly teached in America (although America forces/influences views with military, media, language and example, so I still hear/see current events).
Assuming you meant with "civilized world" everything except developing countries with missionaries, creationists exist here as well (I know a girl who doesn't believe in evolution) but they are a minority and thus not as visible (not to mention that they could never force creationism into curriculum without help). They still hold with teeth and claws onto their beliefs and occasionally make a fuzz amongst other people with opinions.

Concludingly, I believe american christians use their voice/raise a fuzz more than the ones in my country, because one has to make an effort in the american society to be heard/ be aware of their rights or get trampled on (meaning not only american christians make a fuzz, but americans in general). It seems american society is in some ways harsher than european (at least the part I live in) and more likely to use brute force to achieve it's goals (sports example: soccer vs. football).
This might be a unrealistic picture created by news and Hollywood, since I have never been there.

Regarding religion and evolution, I don't believe in God, fate, heaven, the soul, cryostatis or any kind of greater plan or will. I have no problem with evolution or science as long as it doesn't develop great authorities/stagnate and skeptics exist. If there is a God, I'm gonna spend an eternity in hell (or trapped in a sugar coated Disney movie with Jesus and other people), so I'm better off with an eternity of nothing after I die.

[Raggit]

Biothlebop,

Yes, actually, the majority of Americans do truly believe in God, and only one.Ã,  Most, that I know anyway, are very passionate about their beliefs, and want very strongly for you to share them too.Ã,  That's why they aren't ashamed to want a Christian Theocracy in this country, because they believe it's for the best of everybody.

And you're right, America is essentially the big bully on the playground, telling everybody else what to do, how to behave, and then punishing them if they don't comply.Ã,  I'm ashamed of a lot of what our "leaders" have turned America into.

You're right again, about having to make an effort to be heard in this country.Ã,  I always say that getting people to believe you is not the hard part.Ã,  The hard part is getting them to care.

I just found out that Meet the Press on MSNBC will be focusing on these very topics, tomorrow morning. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Should be very interesting.

[biothlebop]

America is essentially the big bully on the playground, telling everybody else what to do, how to behave, and then punishing them if they don't comply.  I'm ashamed of a lot of what our "leaders" have turned America into.

I recently began to read The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler, and although I haven't entirely adopted or understood all his ideas, I do believe America's bullying (with Europe on it's heels) will come to an end someday. If America rises again or has it's place taken by some middle-eastern geographical region, is to be seen. The fact that you (and others) are ashamed of the current situation gives (in my eyes) hope for America to reinvent itself and lead the world into a new spring/cycle from culture to civilization. I still dig the Faustian path (a strive for perfection) better than some zen-ish philosophy though (nothing is important except gardening, and gardening is not that important).

I always say that getting people to believe you is not the hard part.  The hard part is getting them to care.

I doubt people will ever learn to care (for others), it seems to contradict the whole nature of life that is a struggle to stay alive. If there is a mankind in the future, our own belly will always be the nearest. In this way, there is much beauty in the way America looks today or what the Roman empire was, and it's not a shame to live in our times or belong to the country that leads the world. It would be nice though if everything was all great all over the world.

[Raggit]

I recently began to read The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler, and although I haven't entirely adopted or understood all his ideas, I do believe America's bullying (with Europe on it's heels) will come to an end someday.

I just hope that the end comes about through reform, not from being exiled from and destroyed by other nations.   I know America isn't the most popular nation among the world today.

[biothlebop]

Yeah, me too. I fear Nuclear Weapons more than God.

[Helm]

Biothlebop, yes I understand what you're saying more or less. I see america as the current big bully too, but I don't fault the country as much as I fault europe for not providing a counterweight in the geopolitical power struggle. You cannot expect a country to not persue what it feels are it's best interests (what the US is currently doing, unchecked) and although I do agree that what constitutes the best for america is not a series of greedy wars, that sort of internal reevaluation would occur if a series of wars were in fact, contested by the rest of the world, not just neutrally-to-somewhat-discontently suffered by the EU as is the case.

[HillBilly]

I doubt people will ever learn to care (for others), it seems to contradict the whole nature of life that is a struggle to stay alive.

what.

I know alot of people can be inconsiderate assholes, but that statement don't seem very well thought out. Of course, if you're put in a death camp and forced to hang someone in order to survive, most people would do it. But to say that people can't care is strongly underestimating the human race.

[Raggit]

I agree Helm, however, America was designed to provide those checks of power here at Ã, home. Ã, However, George Bush has steam rolled over the other branches of government, and has decided that he can do whatever he wants, when he wants. Ã, Which makes him a dictator.

If our democracy was functioning properly, Bush wouldn't have been able to do the things he has done to America, as well as other nations. Ã, He, and his cabinet, would be in prison right now.

[Helm]

Democracy? I don't think the US has a democratic goverment... not when you have a two-party system that is essentially the exact same thing as far as foreign policy goes, and anyway, a dictatorship and a democratic country have been proven to go about securing their geopolitical interests in much the same way anyway. So Bush in office or some other puppet in office, it makes no difference

hillbilly: check out how human beings operate, try to deduct what natural causes drive them, you won't exhaust the complex motivations (I don't think anyone can), but you'll get what biothlebop was talking about in his 'not very well thought out' thing you quoted

[LimpingFish]

Creation vs Evolution is a pointless debate. Period.

Each side is arguing from standpoints so vastly different, that a structured debate is impossible.

"I believe God created us because I believe in God."

To disprove creation is to disprove God.

Good luck with that.

[Helm]

Period.

that's not very useful, or fun, is it?

[LimpingFish]

Period.

that's not very useful, or fun, is it?

But it IS consice.

[HillBilly]

hillbilly: check out how human beings operate, try to deduct what natural causes drive them, you won't exhaust the complex motivations (I don't think anyone can), but you'll get what biothlebop was talking about in his 'not very well thought out' thing you quoted

No, I don't. If someone I knew was in danger, I'd care about that person. If a friend of mine had money trouble, I'd lend him some because I care. I don't believe that every action of man is a result of selfishness or survival. So please, explain to me how no human being is able to care about others. And please don't give me a "You only care about your friend so you can feel good about yourself" kind of answer.

[Helm]

Although I can deal with confrontational-omg-this-is-the-internet-lol tone just fine, I'm going to pass in this case because I don't owe you anything to have to bear with that kind of attitude. If you're really burning for debate, address me again, this time with good manners, making an effort to outline a clear position about your trouble, not preemptively telling me what argument I can and cannot present in return, and then I'll play.

[HillBilly]

Although I can deal with confrontational-omg-this-is-the-internet-lol tone just fine, I'm going to pass in this case because I don't owe you anything to have to bear with that kind of attitude. If you're really burning for debate, address me again, this time with good manners, making an effort to outline a clear position about your trouble, not preemptively telling me what argument I can and cannot present in return, and then I'll play.

All right, I'm sorry. I came of rather bold, I'll admit.

I'm not going to spend the rest of this post defending my actions, which is also human nature, since it's obviously a waste of time. But I'll ask you, nicely, for a explanation on how people can't care for eachother. We might have a deficiency of caring, but I don't see how it's an impossibility.

[biothlebop]

Hillbilly:
First, with others I meant strangers, the third world, a list of names, numbers, people you have not met
or perhaps only shaken hands with. Basically in a larger scale (the human race), not you and your family
(people as individuals).

Seeing a headline in the newspaper, I cannot mourn 700 dead people, but with the right picture,
I might shed a tear (although the media does it's best to flood, shock and numb me with sensational material).
It is unlikely though that I would feel anything (comparable to your recent money examples or friend in danger) but some kind of shallow "holy shit, that is not good" notion and go on with my day. I believe that how deeply something like this touches a person depends much on imagination and ability to identify with the situation, thus some selfishness is always involved even here.
If I began crying for the human race, the tears would never stop.

I do not doubt you care for your family or loved (this has practical/evolutional use regarding offspring and protecting them), but I see the "people caring for people they never met" as an invented thing that is not in our nature, but what we would like to be (the goal of our Faustian civilization).

Although civilizations have goals/ideals, (such as this strive to be samaritans) I doubt we will ever
reach a socialist utopia without exploitation of nature/animals/men.
Human perfectionists are doomed to fail, as is this civilization built on it, if not for the fact that we have chosen a battle that cannot be won, for the reason that empires aren't built to last.
The human race has no universal grand aspirations but to reproduce and in that way expand. This is even the fate of every great civilization (expansion and pursuing of it's interests), before it gives way to another.

[Helm]

Alright. I guess biothlebop covered most bases (that I know of) but here's a second retelling. I agree that altruism really doesn't exist. The theoretical caring for the world can be attributed instead, to one's need for security and control. You see, as animals, we foremost care about understanding and controlling our immediate surroundings, but unlike animals, we also have the mental capacity to grasp the theoretical bigger picture of what goes on generally, outside our sensory perception. And that picture is a scary one, and we are scared because we cannot control these dangerous conditions. I believe that when we see a picture of dead babies in a third world country, ridden with famine, disease and war, first of all we feel threatened. Then we knee-jerk into 'but this isn't happening to me' but the fear lingers on. Now, according to our disposition, we might rationalize this emotional response by dressing it up in altruistic terms where 'such a thing should never happen in this world!' or we might rationalize it as 'they deserved it!' or whatever shade in between. Just as long as we explain things, just as long as we make them safe, put them in their place. We will therefore, stand and empower an administration that seems to control the world, we will want our country ( our team, our family, ourselves ) to be the winning one. Because this is a game, and the stake is survival.

That is your altruism. That is your caring for the rest of the world. It's about control, loss of control, fear, repression and resistance. We will mold this world into a shape that cannot threaten us, so help us god, help us people, help us anyone. The left is lying when it's saying it cares about the world out of it's bleeding heart. I tell you this while I'm supposedly some kind of leftist. The left is simply rationalizing from a different proposition of what makes the world a safe place for themselves. It's a proposition I find more agreeable, but I will not attribute it to some altruistic desire for rainbow sunshine happiness for the worker wee mentality.

About you caring for your family or friends, about me caring for my family and friends. Although I don't address them as such, they are assets that we care for, directly linked with our self-worth and precieved success. Animalistic egoism drives personal interaction, coupled with the effects of self-awareness, the existential fear or being misunderstood and alone. And all this dressed up in infinitely complex interfacing effects... Would I say this is altruistic? I believe the word is meaningless.

That being said, I'm not one for moralizing, but if somebody helps people and makes people happy I enjoy that and try to underline that this is good (for my own benefit of course) and I don't see the reason to explain to people how they are being 'good' because they are making the world safer for themselves. It's just bad manners I think, but not untrue.

[HillBilly]

First, with others I meant strangers, the third world, a list of names, numbers, people you have not met
or perhaps only shaken hands with. Basically in a larger scale (the human race), not you and your family
(people as individuals)

So what you're saying is that most people don't care for all the suffering in the world? In that case, I agree. But people can still care about strangers. The Red Cross help people all over the world, no matter what. They don't care what your politics are, all they care about is helping people. They keep their mouths shut, and that's why they are the only medical aid organisation that's allowed on both sides. You could argue with "it's their job", but I think a great deal of those workers care about the casualties.

Helm, your input was an interesting read, but the way you described it towards the end, it was like caring didn't exist. And everyone who does good, does it to comfort him- or herself. If this is the case, which don't seem unreasonable, I think the word "care" should be defined as far as it can be stretched, atleast by human nature. Which is, and I feel like a dick to be quoting the dictionary here, "to be concerned or interested" and "to provide needed assistance". This I believe people can do. If it's driven behind a natural force of egotism buried deep back in your head, that's just how caring works.

[Helm]

that's just how caring works.

yes. Not saying we shouldn't use the world, but just discussing how many layers of bullshit one can strip from it and have it still retain functional use.

[lo_res_man]

Religion has a purpose in this world, even if its core belief (belief in one or more gods) is not rational. Science can not and should not make moral judgments. It is not the job of science determine if something is moral or not. THAT is religion's job. It is supposed to be the voice that yells "STOP!" when an outrage occers.However religion doesn't always do that, for religions are made up of people, people with prejudice's and long standing beliefs just like anyone else. Members of the religious community did not make noise during the holocaust, and for that I weep bitterly. But that is its purpose, to cry out when something feels WRONG. Now it is almost misfiring, aiming at things not so important.
BUT it must continue, for though many say it is hidebound and ultra-conservative. Well that is what it is supposed to be. Someone, even if most of us think they are wrong, must yell, even if it is pointless.