| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2005 11:36:08 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by mystical_princess:
Ok first not all people have the ability to go to school and get an education. Some have family issues, some have health issues, etc...
Yes there is public schools available to everyone, but some do not meet special needs, etc.... As far as some schools teaching more and having better stuff that is right. I know here in our state and county that there are several different schools with different ways. For instance say the school closest to us does not have the ability to handle children with handicaps, etc... Now say I do not have the money or ways to get my child to a special school-does that sound like they are all equal, does that sound like my child has the same oppertunity, or is it the parents fault that child can't get the same education?
As far as the poeple who believe most in god having higher social no no's, well this could be true in a sense but I'm not really sure. I think alot of people try to fix their sins by having abortions and so on, maybe this is partially where this comes from.
Personally I know alot of christians and few pegans and some non believers and I'd say they all about rate the same, though I do know more christians who do not practice what they preach than pegans. |
[off topic response]In the US, if you, as a parent, have a child who has special needs, and there is a school that could meet that need (and it is not within the closest district), that system is responsible, totally for either a) getting your child to the program they need or b) moving the program to the child. The system has no options here. They have to serve the special-needs child.
Are all systems equal? hahaha. Compare Charlotte-Meck or Durham county schools to Graham or Pamilico county schools in North Carolina. You will see a huge disparity, at both state and local levels. BUT, until a child is 16, he/she is required to be in school (be it private, public, or other). What he/she does with that is largely up to them. As a teacher, I can do whatever it takes to get the student to learn. Whether or not they do is largely up to them.
In America, education is available. Just not all choose to participate. [end off-topic response]
What exactly do pagans preach? (I ask in all sincerity?)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:04:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by karmat:
What exactly do pagans preach? (I ask in all sincerity?) |
just the same as non-pagan religions. Things like:
- dont turn your back or betray on your God
- God is almighty
- do good stuff
- dont do evil stuff
in short, its just, fear your God and do good deeds.
just another form of control, to turn tigers into sheeps so they are easier to control :) |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:23:59 AM · #28 |
Pagan's worship things such as the earth, moon, stars etc. I don't think there's any limit on what you can worship.
While I'm religious, this editorial doesn't bother me, being non-religious propoganda. ;)
My only gripe is that God does not test the faithful. Take Job for example. The devil tryed to break his faith in God, not God himself. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:38:06 AM · #29 |
Pagan is a term of exclusion, applied by those in the majority to those in the minority.
There is no one form of paganism; nowadays it is most often used by Christians in much the same way as Islam refers to "infidels" -- that is, anyone who is not a believer in the "one true faith." |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:42:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pagan is a term of exclusion, applied by those in the majority to those in the minority.
There is no one form of paganism; nowadays it is most often used by Christians in much the same way as Islam refers to "infidels" -- that is, anyone who is not a believer in the "one true faith." |
I think they have to worship something though, no? Otherwise they'd just be aethiest, agnostic. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:42:29 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pagan is a term of exclusion, applied by those in the majority to those in the minority. There is no one form of paganism; nowadays it is most often used by Christians in much the same way as Islam refers to "infidels" -- that is, anyone who is not a believer in the "one true faith." |
yeah, i think we can also refer to those as "packaging".
take this short joke as an example of effective use of word...
Two monks like to smoke.
First monk asks the high priest, "can i smoke while i pray?"
the high priest replied, "NO, you cannot"
Second monk asks the high priest, "can i pray while i smoke?"
the high priest replied, "YES, you can"
while both are basically doing the same thing, the different choice of word (packaging) made the meaning seem different entirely. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:51:17 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pagan is a term of exclusion, applied by those in the majority to those in the minority.
There is no one form of paganism; nowadays it is most often used by Christians in much the same way as Islam refers to "infidels" -- that is, anyone who is not a believer in the "one true faith." |
Actually, "pagan" is used very little in most Christian circles nowadays (or at least circles I see/hear/experience). They (those who don't adhere to a Christian faith) are usually called "unbelievers."
When I hear "pagan" I think of that Dragnet movie where Tom Hanks (?) and (can't remember his name) have to rescue Connie Swell the Virgin from a bunch of biker dudes were goat skins on their head and poppin' pills of every color imaginable.
Which is why I asked my question.
To someone who calls yourself a "pagan:" What do you believe? |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 01:27:58 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
The major reason that not all high school education is created equal, is not because there is less effort in the teaching offered some, but because there is less effort in the studying of what is taught by some. And that is, unfortunately, due more to culture, than capability. The poorly educated remain so more by choice than by circumstance. |
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you write. To blame a lack of credentialed teachers, adequate textbooks, or clean bathrooms on a "lack of effort" by the students is the most unfathomable bit of distorted "logic" I've come across in some time. |
I agree, GeneralE. And, RonB, the attitude you've displayed here is probably the reason you seem to bang your head against the wall more often than not. You and the religious right substitute moralizing and blaming-the-victim for effective social policy. You support politicians whose policies aggravate an already bad situation, and then you sit back smugly and judge those who are the victims of your policies. More religion, or "faith" as you call it, does not address the root cause of the social ills we face in this country, but perhaps doing something about poverty, education and opportunity will.
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 01:46:43. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 02:31:44 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by fayepek:
Something to add to the pot...
Just want to point out that there is a HUGE difference between religion and a personal relationship with Christ. |
That's very true. People can be religious without any kind of relationship with Christ.
As for the lead article: too much of anything is bad for you. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 03:11:07 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
too much of anything is bad for you. |
too much of DPC is also bad for you, amen! LOL |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 03:21:28 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Pagan is a term of exclusion, applied by those in the majority to those in the minority.
There is no one form of paganism; nowadays it is most often used by Christians in much the same way as Islam refers to "infidels" -- that is, anyone who is not a believer in the "one true faith." |
Not trying to steer this thread in a different direction but another question I would like to propose in the context of this discussion is ....is religious beliefs dying? I don't care which type of religion but is paganism becoming more popular?
Now go knock yourselves out on that one :)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 03:24:02 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Not trying to steer this thread in a different direction but another question I would like to propose in the context of this discussion is ....is religious beliefs dying? I don't care which type of religion but is paganism becoming more popular? |
that depends on how you define "paganism" :) |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 03:31:51 AM · #38 |
Re: defining "pagan" in "moidern" religious terms:
(1) 1) The word "pagan" is derived from the Latin Paganus, "peasant," "from the fields" and "hut dweller", deriving, in turn, from the Latin pagus, "village." 2) They are also many groups of Priests and Priestesses practicing what we call "Paganism" or "Neo (from the Greek word for new) Paganism". 3) Pagan religions are "natural" religions both in origin and in mode of expression as opposed to artificially created ideological religions. 4) General term for magic embracing religions, such as Wicca, Druid, Shaman. Sometimes used interchangably with NeoPagan.
//www.tylwythteg.com/PaganPage/glossary.html
(2) This word ["pagan"] has many unrelated meanings. Some definitions are: Wiccans and other Neopagans sometimes use Pagan as a synonym for Neopagan. Religious and social conservatives often use the term as a general-purpose "snarl" word to refer to cultures and religions very different from the speaker's. a person who is neither Christian, a Muslim or a Jew. an animistic, spirits-and-essences filled belief system, usually polytheistic. It is based upon direct perception of the forces of nature and usually involves the use of idols, talismans and taboos in order to convey respect for these forces and beings.
//www.religioustolerance.org/gl_p.htm
R.
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 03:33:36.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 03:45:54 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide.
|
And how, praytell, does the "religious right" attempt to reverse the slide into "immorality?" By condemning abortion but condoning war? By condemning fornication but screwing the poor and middle class by supporting a redistribution of public monies upwards to the rich ? By condemning "sinners" but condoning their leaders'call for the "heads" of heads of state of foreign countries? Or is it by condeming untruths but condoning the misleads and misdeeds of the leaders of their own country?
Moral relativism is nothing more than hypocracy yet the fundamentalists of any religion want to force feed their beliefs, values and ways of life on everyone else. What is so scary now in the US is that they are using the political machinery to achieve their goals. Perhaps they are now swimming with the tide.
Message edited by author 2005-10-03 03:47:07. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 04:06:16 AM · #40 |
| I still think religion is a form of control. pagan or not. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:17:55 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RonB:
However, an increased sense of "morality" IS the answer, but it would appear that many, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world, prefer to bend the definition of "morality" to include only those "sins" that they, themselves, do not indulge in regularly. Ergo, abortion, adultery, pre-marital sex, fornication, homosexual behaviour, internet pornography, cheating on one's income taxes, dealing drugs, using drugs, looting when there is little chance of getting caught, stealing paperclips from one's employer, etc. are no longer considered immoral, as they once were.
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide.
|
I just hope that no child of yours or grandchild comes to you for help and support when they are pregnant or decide to reveal they are homosexual!
To take the view that pre-marital sex or homosexuality are sins in this day and age demonstrates the worst side of religions. It is comparable with believing that women should be subservient to men,that alcohol is the work of the devil, that sex should be for procreation and not a natural enjoyable act.
Many many people who live good lives, better than some so called religious folk, decide not to marry with in the church or not to marry at all. They commit their lives to each other without a ceremony. This is not a sin or at least not in my definition of a sin. What is your definition?
Homosexuality is a sexual preference people are born with and not some form of deviant behaviour they choose to take part in. How can this be a sin? Did God make some people homosexual so they could live in sin without being able to have a choice except a physically loveless life?
Tolerance is the greatest attribute of any person and in my mind the most "christian". To be so intolerant is unchristian in every sense of the word.
P
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:30:19 AM · #42 |
As far as my post and the word "pagan" in this post I was using it as a reference to those who are wiccan, druid, etc.. of the sort. It is a broad range that most people commonly refer to as pagan, Not knowing much about it or not knowing the diffrence between one or the other. I do not think that religon is to blame for all the wrong in the world. Also to clarify most pagans do have a belief in something. The whole issue of those with the most religon having more issues seems crazy to me, but as I said before I've seen it go both ways for different religons. I personally think it is who you are and I also don't beleive that you are totally a product of up bringing and enviorment, some yes but not totally. I just think that everyone make there own decisions and then uses faith as either their scape goat or there inspiration.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:39:01 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide.
|
And how, praytell, does the "religious right" attempt to reverse the slide into "immorality?" By condemning abortion but condoning war? By condemning fornication but screwing the poor and middle class by supporting a redistribution of public monies upwards to the rich ? By condemning "sinners" but condoning their leaders'call for the "heads" of heads of state of foreign countries? Or is it by condeming untruths but condoning the misleads and misdeeds of the leaders of their own country?
Moral relativism is nothing more than hypocracy yet the fundamentalists of any religion want to force feed their beliefs, values and ways of life on everyone else. What is so scary now in the US is that they are using the political machinery to achieve their goals. Perhaps they are now swimming with the tide. |
When fundamentalists belonging to other religions attempt to move forward their misguided agendas, many Americans have criticized it and the US has even gone to war to fight it. But Christian fundamentalism is not seen as a danger to civil liberty.
I think many people have gotten it the wrong way when they blame Islamic fundamentalism as the root of several problematic issues that we as a global community now face. I believe Christian fundamentalism is a force that has proven itself throughout our collective history as an aggressive, intolerant, malicious and destructive entity.
But nevermind that. I'd think we can make forward progress when, and only when, people can let go of fundamentalism of any sort, and start to properly treat each other on the basis NOT of some "afterlife" concepts, but rather on a simple focus on this lifetime, and its challenges, problems and joys.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 09:45:55 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by rgo:
I'd think we can make forward progress when, and only when, people can let go of fundamentalism of any sort, and start to properly treat each other on the basis NOT of some "afterlife" concepts, but rather on a simple focus on this lifetime, and its challenges, problems and joys. |
Very well said.
Mind you, this is what you are gauging as important - to some, the afterlife concepts are what is important... important enough to fly planes into skyscrapers, for instance. And the dilemma lies in that, if you try to tell people they should focus on what you perceive as real and what you believe as important, you wind up as another doctrinaire trying to impose yourself on others.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:16:59 AM · #45 |
"The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States."
So first we take an "evolutionary scientist" who is pre-disposed against numerous members of his study group. Had it simply said "a scientist". But now as I understand it an "evolutionary scientist" in common terms is a biologist. And not an anthropologist. Was this individual even qualified to attempt the scientific research? And in truth, much research was done by the unqualified...good research too. So I go back to the question of bias.
"Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality."
Okay, so this is a determined factor. Now, let's be mindful. The U.S. has a much higher level of the above adherants than say Canada or Australia. However, it is also very polarized. So America with it's high rates of such will obviously skew the statistic. However, to make an association that such are due to their being "religions" people is extremely misleading. And the method is quite unscientific.
Did the researcher endeavor to find the levels of crime, murder, STD, etc in the strongly religious populations as compared to the standard population? If not, seems a mere opinionated conclusion drawn from inconclusive data and the building of an argument from a non-objective standpoint of bias.
"Of the nations studied, the U.S. ΓΆ€” which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) ΓΆ€” also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
No addressing whatsover regarding other causes. Whether the American society is simply more licentious. Whether it may be in fact due to our ideals of freedom pushed to far by a select few.
"Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same."
"
First off, were these murders in the general area of the states or were they more localized in the cities? Remember, the cities throughout the whole USA were blue.
Second, it is a known fact that the above issues are often directly tied to socio-economic factors. And the fact that it is well documented that the southern states in the United States tend to be the poorest in the Union.
"This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs."
Really, shows my point this guy is a biased individual and purely incompetant at science. Ammunition for against faith-based social programs. Guess what...if you're going to tax me, then I am going to want my funds utilized in ways that I feel proper. Otherwise, I will cease to pay taxes to support social programs. As for abstinance-only....that's such a political buzzword. Very very very few programs are abstinance only. The argument has been in nearly all cases to provide strong support for abstinance. And to ONLY fund programs that support abstinance. Not to the exclusion of others. But rather, parents don't want their tax $$$ spent to give 5th graders condoms and be taught about sex. But NOT be told "you should and you can wait".
"We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous."
Too much dogma is dangerous. Just as too much scientific dogma has led to numerous ethnic abuses in the name of "evolution" (including the placing of a pygmy african in a zoo exhibit, slavery, mass genocide, racism, etc).
Likewise, I would consider this extremely poor example of scientific research immersed in rhetoric and bias to fall into the "socially dangerous dogmatic beliefs".
"And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?"
Because....there is a great difference. Modern American Christianity is far from extreme en masse. Sure, there was the guy who killed the abortion doctors. But as I recall most of mainstream christianity condemned him immediately. Most mainstream christians in America are not radical nor extreme, in fact most are merely attempting to maintain certain status quos. Some of which are so old they predate christianity by millenia (ie: concept of marriage). Others so horrific that if people ever thought about it they might realize just how horrific it is to realize that 1 out of 3 babies conceived in the United States will be killed.
"nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent."
So this is an unbiased rational tolerant post in what way? *LOL* Is there any tolerance for us in your system. No. So the issue is not one of failure to tolerate difference and dissent. It's that you don't tolerate them and they don't tolerate you.
"My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful. "
Paul's entire study is easily discredited thru mere scientific guidelines and standards. Paul's study is what is commonly referred to as junk science. A simple overview.
It would be akin to me saying that "new evidence shows that Mars is experiencing global warming and that the Martian icecaps are melting at a quick pace...this proof that global warming is not due to man's actions means we can pollute all we want". Not so. The evidence does lead strongly that there are other major affectors than man. But pollution is bad. Even if there was no global warming. And we should endeavor to reduce it to as low levels as we are capable of.
"To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry."
I guess to a degree I'll support this. This article, the post, are all examples of absolutist beliefs that have no rationality and are mere casuality being used to express hatred, intolerance, and violent rhetoric.
And that, of course, is what makes this post so very dangerous. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:27:37 AM · #46 |
| Thank you for injecting a little sanity into this discussion! |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:35:50 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by shadow:
religion is a form of control |
government is a form of control
Are you suggesting we do away with both?
;) |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:55:03 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by shadow:
religion is a form of control |
government is a form of control
Are you suggesting we do away with both?
;) |
No suggestion of the sort...rather, just want to keep one from infiltrating the other. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 11:20:08 AM · #49 |
| That's not an article. It's a commentary. There's a very important difference. |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 12:02:51 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
No suggestion of the sort...rather, just want to keep one from infiltrating the other. |
I neither want a "government to establish a religion" nor a "religion to establish a government"....
But I do want the members of government to be free to practice their religion (so long as it does not cause undue harm to the other members) and I do want the members of religion to be free to practice in the government as well. (likewise, so long as it does not cause undue harm to the other members)
I believe that is government is going to tax for social programs said monies should simply be devoted to getting the job done. And that both faith-based and non-faith based entities should be able to compete on equal footing. With the requirement being that all said funds received be dedicated to the deed and all U.S. citizens be eligable to receive thru said funded entity. With those goals achieved there should be no other debate on the matter.
|
|
