Take God Out of Government , Government Becomes God ?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0Read about this , I thought that it was an interesting take , Can you prove it as being wrong ?
God is defined as all powerful, able to accomplish anything it wishes, and with never an error. Government can never do that. Case dismissed.
The one described at the end of the declaration of independence , my God , America's God . Read it sometime.
I know what is there. Obviously, you are out of step, but aren't you always?
What do you think has been so controversial over the last 250 years if this definition for God and how it applies were universally understood and appreciated?Not 250 years in controversy , how about maybe twenty or so ?
No, Ahorseback it has been much longer, you really don't know?
Credence is right: god, any god, has been controversial for thousands of years. If it wasn't which god it was what god said and to whom. What god wanted, what god demands. Always controversial, but somehow the "government" always gets to define it all, whether the priesthood, the emperor/president/whatever or other more hidden controlling structure of that specific nation.
The existence of a God in itself controversial of course but not in constitutional US -speak that is a relatively recent "pop" culture issue . When has the US constitution and its relationship been controversial in any registrable amount before the 1950-s 60's other than in a media -social media hype ?
So, you are tying the issue of the God mentioned in the Declaration as suddenly being contentious during the period of beatniks, hippies and the creation of the counter culture? First, that is more than 20 years ago.
So, you really think that we were all on the same page regarding this "God" as mentioned in the DOI before the middle of the last century?
Slavery: so which God was the true one referred to in the DOI? The God of the abolitionist against slavery or the one of the Southern Planters who said that it was a positive good and used their interpretation of God and the Bible to support their position.
Anti-semitism in America: did the DOI definition of God included considering Jews Christ killers?
Anti-Catholicism, who said that the DOI definition of God did not make provisions for a Pope?
Jehovah's witnesses fought the interpretation of the DOI God by being conscientious objectors during WWI, and were jailed because of it
Jehovah's Witnesses fought in the early 1940's and won a judicial ruling saying that they nor their children had to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, and that they were not traitors nor blaspheming God for taking this stand.
God said that Women were the "weaker vessel", what would the 18th Century version of God and his expectations be in regard to equal rights for women? Much of that struggle operating in earnest during the 1st 3 decades of the 20th Century.
And again there was the issue of keeping school boards from indoctrinating students in the "ole time religion". The court rules in favor of the complainant. But. This was 1962, during the period when you said everything changed.
It is not the acknowledgement of God in American life that has so much disappeared more than a change in perspective and the times that are primarily orchestrated by people.I am saying that god -hate / god controversy today wasn't prevalent in 1776 , not at all in fact , not until recent history . You seem willing as are all the god haters today , of blaming god for all of mankind's shortcomings or social issues. I'm not debating that there has been atheisms for a hundred years or so in America , I'm saying the controversy was pretty much unheard of in the writing of the declaration . How could atheism have been prevalent then , when the DOI it was a puritan based writing by the founding fathers from it's initiation ?
The fact is you're giving pop / atheism far too much history and giving god to much blame for recent mankind's evil transgressions . Believe in god or not , a moral based society is an inherently better society anyday over a godless one ."I am saying that god -hate / god controversy today wasn't prevalent in 1776..."
You're probably right. The religious community is not known for tolerance, and those not professing a belief in the One True God (as defined by local churches) were not treated well.
But that does not mean that atheism or belief in other gods did not exist, and in large numbers. It means that the church did not tolerate such things and it was thus wise to keep it "in the closet" so to speak.
No controversy, then, just hiding. I confess I would rather see the controversy, whether about a god or anything else - hiding thoughts or beliefs from the view of authority out of fear is not healthy for society. How much more could Galileo or Darwin and learned if it were not for that fear, or for the events that produced that fear?Of course the controversy wasn't relevant in 1776. These men, Founding Fathers, while intelligent could not peer into the crystal ball to see the future
You don't seem to get it, Ahorseback I did not blame God for man's shortcoming, I blame man for Man's shortcomings part of which includes using God as an excuse.
I am not an atheist nor a God hater as you seem to imply. I just understand a fundamental principle that no one has all the answers in regard to this subject. As a black man, you don't think that I would not have issue with the God and His will as describe in 18th Century documents? For white men of property, of course God was "well defined", but what about the rest of us?
We all have our Gods, would be Muslim's Allah be ok with you? Are their devout interpretation of God's will preferable to a Godless society?As we are all observing as we speak Allah or God is a controversy already in many parts of the world , can they coexist ? Sure , As long as they don't counter each others existence and freedom and right to exist . There lies the problem . When one wars ideologically with the other or when one's government based existence is threatened by the other ,well then.........
I thought the title as the OP was interesting in that it raised the question in me ; Which is better as we've experienced in America , The morality of our God or for that matter any god based government or - the lack of one ? A government that is your god ?Presuming that "our" God means the Christian concept of a god being forced onto everyone in the country, the text purporting to give a history of the entity does not show good morality at all. From bashing out the brains of babies to killing people for being as He made them to be, it is one long list of cruelty and horrific actions.
I can't think of a single "god based government" throughout history that has shown decent morals, either. From the countries of the middle east to the Christian countries of Europe in the middle ages to the Puritans or slave owners of our own history, god based governments are some of the worst in the world.Our God , our government is christian based yet you know , considering that our christianity today is the most socially , culturally advanced and reflects less violence to it's or other religious followers in the modern world , then I will assume the violence you talk about is prehistoric Islamic, christian or other secular violence.
Where exactly though is a personal faith based christianity being "forced " onto other people today ? I did not know that faith could be forced . Other than mom and dad making me go to summer bible study as a kid in the sixties, probably to save on baby-sitting costs .? If it makes you or anyone feel less guilt in comparing modern christianity to it's past orto the modern muslim world , oh well , I can't help that ."Where exactly though is a personal faith based christianity being "forced " onto other people today ?"
You can start by asking the victims of the inquisition, or better yet the inquisitor, how faith is forced. You could discuss it with Galileo or Darwin. You might ask the Puritans how it was done, or the families and neighbors of murdered "witches". Talk to the American Indians - you'll get an earful. Ask the gay community of a couple of decades ago if they were forced to behave the same as the faithful, or even the trans-gender group today. Ask the nuns if they could fulfill their dream of entering the priesthood. Speak to teachers being forced to teach "intelligent design" as a science topic. History is replete with Christians, or other religions, forcing their belief onto people.
It is true that Christianity has matured morally over what it was, but at the same time it still lags behind society in general. It always will, for the morals of that religion concerns controlling the population to act as it's god demands far more than it does with it's treatment of other people. Just like nearly all religions do - to do otherwise will inevitably cost the priesthood it's power and eventually it's income.
"So, you really think that we were all on the same page regarding this "God" as mentioned in the DOI before the middle of the last century?"
That we were not is the single biggest reason (if not the only one) that the separation of religion and state was written into the constitution. No state wanted another state telling them what their god wants of them.
The existence of a god is controversial, yes. So is what it wants and what it demands of people. As is what it does, what it says and even what it did in the past.
In fact, everything about the gods are controversial. And as I said, the controlling structure, not the people, are always the ones that get to define and determine all of these things.
I do pray to my Justin Trudeau poster every night and try to live my life by the guidance of his Facebook posts, so yeah, now that you mention it...
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Funny that you seem to relate the horrible faults of humanity , of societies , of political ideologies , of states , or armies or one race to another - as the fault solely of religion , that is all kind of a cop- out Wilderness . I'll give you this , religions at times don't have the best track records but a religiously moral society is way better than the lack of one .
For instance , is the modern day occurrence of child molestation in the Catholic church then the fault of christianity too OR is it the individual man wearing the robe ? The deaths of women and children in Waco Texas a fault laid at the front step of God or of David Koresh ? Jimmy Jones in Central America laced the cool-aid , God had nothing to do with that . Lets not excuse the individual or collective accountability of mankind itself and lay all the blame at a god's feet .
I still would rather a people of religion based morality than the lack of one."I'll give you this , religions at times don't have the best track records but a religiously moral society is way better than the lack of one ."
I have yet to see a religiously controlled society I would want to live in. Every one quickly degenerates into something that no one (outside the priesthood and their "pets") would enjoy and is no better than any other dictatorship we've seen.
Yes, the Catholic church bears some responsibility (and perhaps a great deal of it) for the child molestation by the man in the robe...the man that the church demands suppress the instincts and drives that hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created him with. It was the policies and rules of the church that led to such aberrations, not to speak of the requirement it be hidden when found.
Koresh and Jones, no. That was sheer stupidity of the people, for they were in no way forced to take part in those so-called "churches". Although the children didn't have much choice...
You may be happy with the morality of second class citizenry for women, hanging gays and pretending that gender is completely a function of gonads. Of forcing teaching onto children that we know is false and a lie. Of a controlling priesthood that can do and say anything it wants, forcing you to accept it or die. Of inventing "witches" and other demons that can then be blamed for anything that goes wrong. Of denying learning and discoveries that show the religious beliefs to be false. Of near total control of how we live our lives.
I'm not.
When it comes to how morality and religion interact overall I would suggest the effect is neutral.
Being secular is about having a government that lets you choose what if any gods you follow. So in a civil context it is more important than god. By which I mean, it stops people from forcing their gods and their rules on other people who don't want them. A secular society is to my mind superior to a theocracy where everyone is forced to follow a particular god whether they want to or not. This is easy to appreciate if you imagine the theocracy choosing a religion, or even a sect of your religion, other than your own.But you don't feel America allows that , that you believe in a God or sect of your choice ? Contrary to modern , intelligent agnostics , no one forces anything on anyone in America . How many times in these forums have we determined that christianity is a religion of faith based belief ? Unless of course you consider the pair of teens on your front porch in white shirts and dress slacks voluntarily spreading the word of the LDS church to you IF YOU wish to give them a moment ?
psycheskinner ,This is a far cry from ".....forcing their gods and their rules on other people who don't want them ........" You lose that debate every day and always will in modern America . Of course , if one needs a false cause for being outraged .........
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
Well no wonder you live in America then if you wouldn't live in a religiously controlled society , The catholic church hold responsibility for letting it go on so long , I agree .
Your last paragraph makes no sense except it that I've heard much of the same from those who probably and resentfully grew up in catholicism or perhaps had a strict southern baptist father , preacher , I've seen much of the same in friends and acquaintances . This whole" second class ..........witches and other demons ....."nonsense is really just that though sorry . Your starting to sound much like the other "......stuffing religion down my throat "angered people though , I don't wish to get you worked up .And does the Catholic church bear some blame for forcing their upper echelon to live a life of celibacy, trying to roll back a million years of evolution because "God wants it that way"?
When we have serious presidential candidates telling us that (their version of) God's law takes priority over the laws of the land, are we seeing force in the making?
When gays are murdered for openly being gay, are we seeing religious force?
When the general population is forced to pay for religious icons (idolatry) on public property are we being forced?
When laws are passed that require religious myth to be taught to our children as factual or even possible, are we being forced?
When stores are closed forever because they sold the current version of pornography, or anything at all in some locations, are we being forced into the belief system of religion?
I could go on forever, but another tack may show it better. We are continually being told there is a "war" on religion, and Christianity, but when looked at and examined, the only "war" is to keep the religious from doing things like the above instances - to deny religion the ability to force others to live by the beliefs of the faithful. That religious leaders or groups can no longer force others to accept their religious laws and beliefs makes it a "war" somehow, and is strongly objected to. If they aren't trying to force beliefs onto others, what is there to object to?Regardless of my perspective, or the particular points you addressed, that was well stated.
GAThank you. Really, that's my only beef with religion in general; that they take it as instruction from their god to force those around them to follow the tenets of their religion. It can be overt (blue laws) or fairly well hidden (ID in schools or religious icons on public property) but it is always there.
What the religious believe or do behind closed doors is their business, but keep it there rather than trying to bring their beliefs into the law books.
"I could go on forever ............."and most of you often do when it comes to the God hate , I do believe that the very first forums I got into on hubpages dealt with religion , religious freedom , something like eight years ago , Why ? Because of what you are doing right here ,right now Finger pointing or rather blame shifting .
You are blaming God for the ills of mankind and every one of your accusatory points is simply that , point that finger in a direction other then where it belongs, at you , at me , at ourselves as mankind . First of all I'm not a preacher , I don't attend church , I'm not an acting christian so you cannot judge my opinion as being of the flock ,so to speak but I can see hypocrisy from a thousand miles away . Your blame game of religion is just simply that .
Do the organized houses of the many factions bare responsibility for some even horrible interpretations and manifestation of the written words ? Yes . Do their leaders ? Yes . Do the men who attend to these organizations , yes . And there lay the ultimate responsibility , The MAN who wrote , re-wrote , interpret translate , and act out the then translated writing of the bible{ s}.
You have not made one point that accomplishes anything in this debate BUT ultimately inadvertently point the blame at yourself , at me or at those around us . Man is an animal of uncontrolled free thought , religiously , politically or individually and it is directly , ultimately that free thought that makes him stumble his way through his own accountability and interpretations of the bible or for that matter any book of instructions. the gist of your opinion is ultimately that of the handyman in the garage who refuses to open the instruction manual and fix his own lawnmower but continues to tinker his way as the grass eternally grows ,as he pulls and pulls on the starter rope getting nowhere . The quintessential guy in the car that refuses to listen to the wife with the map and drives around and around the mall looking for the way out of town .In following this thread, ahorseback, relative to Wilderness' points, I think you are mistaken. It is not God that it being blamed, it is religion. Specifically, organized religion. A religion isn't a God, so it is not God that is being blamed.
If you could consider that the two - religion, and God, are not the same thing, would that have any effect on your perspective of "God-haters?"
GABy saying God I am admitting religion as being the same G.A , My sole point is that it is unfair to blame religion [or any God } today for the infractions of human nature against itself because of the human interpretation of the bible /religion
I do believe that many people are injecting a certain amount of the emotion of personal experiences here , that's all . I had a friend who was raised by a southern baptist preacher , apparently a mean Dad . Any discussion of faith prayer or religion even periferal with him instantly turned nasty because of that mans personally despising of all things religion . THAT is what I perceive here beneath the surface of the debate . The acts of man are his alone . where ever he gets his inspiration , religion government or any controlled inspiration otherwise attained AND so is the blame .
The social / cultural limits of every act known to man , from burning witches at the stake to bombing distant capitals , from poisoning babies to enslaving another human being , from mixing the cool-Aid to drinking it , are the fault of man and not something in the eternities. When one day we all wake up to this become more humane and less animalistic , then we become a better world, not by blaming the simple act of a man having faith in something higher than himself.You said:
"By saying God I am admitting religion as being the same G.A , My sole point is that it is unfair to blame religion [or any God } today for the infractions of human nature against itself because of the human interpretation of the bible /religion"
That is basically what I told you my take was in regard to this matter.
I differ from you in the fact that we all have our own concept of God or lack thereof to contend with and that the God you identify in the DOI is not necessarily the one that we are all going to acknowledge. I fight for the right for people to believe and worship as they may wish. I will take my chances with secular humanism anytime over someone lording over me a deity of their own design and choosing.Part ofthe point that I'm trying to explain and not doing very well, is that a moral people by even the basic parameters of a religious society , Is just going to have more morals , ethical standards and human kindness " do unto others ", than a godless society . IMHO.
Europe, for example, has a lot less affinity for organized religion than the United States if one used their surveys as to denomination affiliation and church attendance as indicators. Can we really say that their societies are lacking in morals, ethical standards or human kindness relative to America?
We'd have to compare so many details of cultures ,societies legal systems , religions , justice systems as to probably be impossible to determine ? America is a fairly religious nation though wouldn't you say ? I think I'd hate to see our country less religious or lacking it altogether given its current state of affairs ?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mohatma Gandhi
Yes, America is a religious nature relative to other Western style democracies. The religious nature could stay but any correlation between the presence of that and the nature of American life is hard to determine.
If people actually lived up to the lofty standards of their religious beliefs, they could move people in their direction by their good example.
So, Islam too, right?
Change of heart, again?
This would be better addressed by Wilderness, than I, ahorseback. but I don't think you should consider religion and God, (any God), as being the same thing.
It is true that the human failures you mention should be attributed to the failures of man, and not of a God, but man uses religion as justification for those failures. Man uses religion as authority to commit those "failures." He says God says, when in fact it is his religion that says, not his God.
I believe I may understand your point to be that a life of faith, (any faith), can be a wonderful thing. And I agree. I can imagine how much less stressful life would be if you have an instruction manual to handle all its problems. A set of rules to live by.
But that individual faith should be just that - individual. I think it is when that faith is part of a man-created, structured, and defined religion that it separates from its God. And that is where the blame for the problems should placed. Not on man's imperfections, but on organized, (perhaps there may be exceptions), religion's manipulations of those imperfections. At least in a discussion such as this. Otherwise, I believe the truth of the matter is that no matter our level of civilization - man is still an animal. Just peel away a few layers of our security, and even a God won't be needed to justify Godless behavior.
I hope you might consider this perspective. I think it might lessen your sense of your God being blamed, when I think it is the religion that supposes to worship him, (or her, or it), that is and should be blamed.
Just offering a perspective ahorseback, I am out of my depth here and don't presume any authority at all for my opinion.
GAYou did as well as I could have. Religion is not a god - it is a collection of men that purport to know what a god wants, and it's a funny thing that (according to religion) that god always wants close to what is common practice of the time. Usually a little more conservative, but close.
- ahorsebackposted 5 years ago0
I shouldn't be at all surprised that we are at a point where we can blame anything but the man for any hu-man condition whatsoever , Man has always had his needs for organizing in groups starting from his days in the caves . From the acquisition of food , to planting the corn , defending his family , to procreating and so why not his spirituality . For most men anyway and maybe I can say all I say because I'm not personally into groups of any kind .
Considering too that he is first born mentally naked , alone and afraid and so dies that same way , I wonder at what point it was that he first sticks out his finger and says " This that I have done today is all your fault " the first time he took a life ? The first time he raped a woman ? The first time or the last that his merry little group of man encountered the next village and swept in murdering ,maiming , raping and pillaging .
No matter how we define mankind's groups , the horrible infractions of mankind or his beliefs . We first have to blame man himself for all that has occurred under his watch , We now stand in circles and point at the stars and say it's your fault , you are the object of destruction , we point at a club , a gun , a sword , a chariot , at the longer and better armed line of the soldiers of the enemy and say , It's all your fault ?
Long before man became a very persuading minister a warrior , a leader of men , a teacher of others , a king or a world leader he was first just a man .And right there is where all of the blame for anything he has ever done or will ever do lies . Mankind and all the infractions of man are the fault of nothing other than man himself . The very object of mans goodness or his evil is his conscience , a conscience in which he himself choses , so whether he lets his conscience be controlled or persuaded by others , it is still HIS conscience . singularly or in groups .
So of all of the bitter infractions of mankind we blame a mans spirituality ? No , don't blame the group , blame him alone .On this there can be no argument, for there are precious few events in our lives not caused by man, and most of the time by ourselves. Unfortunately, just as you point out, it has become the norm to blame something else; a person, the weather, the past. Anything that we think will get us "off the hook" for poor behavior.
I do agree that the religions , led by man , for instance the Southern Baptist Church or the Catholic diocese even and the perhaps over -abundance of man organised groups can be as much at fault as man himself . Yet the generalization of " religions , churches" is kind of like saying all black men or all white men ,all women or all men whatever the accused group is just that . simply Generalizing . Wouldn't you agree that undoubtedly all groups , including government , are way better off WITH the general morality of that which religion teaches ? I don't know that the NEA is teaching morality 101 especially today ?
No. I can't say that we would be better off with the "morality" being taught by religion.
Although far, far improved from what it was in centuries past I still look at the "morality" of trying to scare a gay or trans-gender "straight" by telling them they will go to Hell if they don't quit behaving against God's will. I look at the "morality" of insisting innocent, impressionable children be taught a myth as fact in our schools. I look at the "morality" of allowing children to die when a simple blood transfusion or other common medical care would save them (currently being fought in my state). I look at the "morality" of absolute insistence that the One True God is the one the speaker believes in and that everyone must obey the edicts of that god, but without ever having any evidence whatsoever that the statement is true.
And that's just Christianity; I look at what is happening in the Muslim countries with people, firm in their faith, killing any that do not agree to accept Islam as the guiding light, maiming others and setting up a second class citizenry all in the name of their god.
And when I look at these kinds of things I recognize that no god worth worshiping would ever support such behavior; that the morals being espoused and demanded are coming straight from man. Religion is teaching man's notion of morality, not those of any god; whether in America, the middle east or the far east, the morals being taught were designed and implemented by man.
Each and every one of us has the capacity to access the "spirituality" within us. Some will find a rather dark place but most are quite capable of finding within themselves what is right and what is wrong (though it will always be based on their own culture and history). But even those good concepts are perverted and twisted by religion; when it becomes necessary or desirable to support the church, to maintain the power of the priesthood, to control others according to our own spirituality (or that of the priesthood) the "morals" of the church fail abysmally. It has been so throughout our history and is so today, for the fake morality of the church always lags behind that of society; the church is always playing "catch up" in the field of morals and it does so only when the gold streaming into church coffers begins to fall because religions teachings and morals are not something that people can swallow any more. Society changes and religion, slowly, changes with it or goes under.Well you're obviously a bit biased , as long as morality is more taught than genetic and taught whether parental , systematic or theologically . I'm not sure if your implying that it's genetic is a truth , we'll have to disagree on that one but as long as it IS taught we have to assume the other positive accolades , integrity , honesty and compassions of humanity are the same , better instilled in a man than not. I don't think I'd want to live in a country without spirituality , it's a far better place
Well, I'd have to say that some of what we call morality, as a species, IS genetic. That evolution has produced at least a semblance of morality in all of us or the species would not exist. An example might be that cannibalism is very rare in the animal kingdom; species that eat their own don't tend to survive for long and when they do there is some kind of off-setting attribute like extreme reproduction rates.
But I'll also say that that is only the beginning; that we go far beyond that most basic of moral principles in generating a moral code for ourselves. But Horse, it sounds as if you're falling into the trap that there is, somewhere, a set of ethics and morals that apply to everyone on the planet and that, somehow, you have found that code and live (or try to) by it.
That isn't true; every society and every culture designs it's own morals. What is perfectly acceptable, even lauded, in one is a punishable offense in another; an evil that sometimes cannot be allowed to continue to live. It is a part of what makes it obvious that morals do not come from a god, but from man himself.So simply put , You don't believe there is any percentage value in the sunday school teachers , in the teaching of the ten commandments , in the teaching of "do onto others" , by higher rather than a lower percentage ?
".......morals that apply to everyone on the planet ......" ? if that's a trap, then it's a trap of all religions , faiths or denominations as being better than none ? Free will cannot replace the positive guidance of any familial or an outside source . You cannot tell me the lone child evolving in a cave of solitude will be as moral , ethical or conscientious as the one raised in the surroundings of church , schools or basic society. He's born pretty much with a mind but an empty one .No, there is no value in teaching children that they shall have no god but the Christian one (and from the same sect to boot). Or that they will be punished because their father did wrong or that that shall not produce sculptures. No value in being taught not to take the name of a myth in vain or to do nothing but lie around one day per week.
There is absolutely value in learning the golden rule...and in practicing it - something that churches utterly fail in doing for they all demand that everyone follow their tenets and beliefs without considering whether they would like to be forced to follow the belief system of others themselves.
Morals do not come from a single individual - how could they, for all morals (real ones, not the fake ones from religion) concern how others are treated and a single individual HAS no others. Morals come from society, from a culture and without either one there are no morals.
But will a lone child in a cave have better "morals" than the Islamic radicals? Or than the inventors of the Inquisition, or those that stole Indian children to indoctrinate them in Christianity? Personally I would have to say that a totally amoral person (happens in some mental illnesses) is better than some of those that cause such harm because they are told their god wants them to.Wilderness , where generally you are pretty fair I have to say , if you cannot at least acknowledge the simple attritional probability of a church attendee from a young age as probably being a more moral , decent and conscientious person than a non attendee , then I have to paint you as being a bit biased for whatever reason .
Well, if gross generalities are pertinent (and they probably are) we might look at two similar groups; one mostly secular and one mostly Christian (I'm assuming that your bias towards Christianity means you aren't interested comparing other religions). Say, Europe vs the Americas. Reasonably similar government and culture structures but very different in religious acceptance.
Europe does a decent job of environmental stewardship (surely the moral thing to do) while the Americas destroy species and rain forests while existing on oil. Europe has a far lower incarceration rate, and a far lower crime rate - both indicative of good morals. Europe at least makes a good faith effort to teach, from youth to adult, what they have tried to show as factual; the church would have the Americas teach the mythology of their religion as true, and do so as much as possible. That can't be a moral thing to do - teaching impressionable youth that myth and fable are true. Europeans are, I think, far less concerned at what religion one practices than people in the Americas; the "do unto others" thing doesn't seem to apply when choosing the church your neighbor should attend.
I will say that North America is considerably more interested in personal responsibility and freedom than Europeans...but that doesn't come from religious teachings; both are an anathema to religion in general.
So, in a very general sense, when people are taught by the church their moral structure isn't as good, as decent or as conscientious as when they are not. While religion, in very general terms, does provide a good deal of good in both actions and teachings, it also teaches a great deal of falsehoods and immorality.
If we look at more specific actions/teachings, we find Christian churches that teach gay people are evil and doomed to burn in hell. We find them causing great pain and anguish by excommunicating gays because "they are evil". We see them refusing simple medical treatment for sick children because "God will heal them". We see congregations building "museums" teaching a 5,000 year old earth and people riding dinosaurs. Churches spend vast fortunes building their fancy structures...while saying they should feed the poor. Churches are, more and more, using distinctly non-religious methods of attracting converts (and cash) - God has become a secondary part of the whole thing rather than the central foundation.
So when it comes to a bias, are you sure that your obvious and acknowledge bias towards (a specific form of) Christianity isn't clouding your vision here? Are your assumptions that God (and the church He runs) can do no wrong, providing the claim that Church teachings are good for people? You have a very large tendency to gloss over the obvious failings of the church as if they don't matter - does your church bias require that and does it then extend into the morality of the church and it's teachings?
Well damn ahorseback, I think your comment strays a bit from the original religious aspect of this "blame" discussion, but I hope you aren't expecting an argument on your point. I agree with you.
GA
Related Discussions
- 52
What do you think is the most controversial topic about at the moment?
by Adamowen 11 years ago
What do you think is the most controversial topic about at the moment?
- 58
this is what I see in the TEA Party movement...
by SparklingJewel 14 years ago
listen carefully to what is said...its not a religious takeover of the country/government...BUT an understanding that spiritual values (not a particular religion) of how God "works" in life's aspects. It is what the Founding Fathers were saying in the Declaration of Independence and in...
- 14
What's the most controversial subject or question in the world today?
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
What's the most controversial subject or question in the world today?Seriously, with the myriad number of ways people today get offended, I'm curious to know what area offends people the most. Is it about religion, life after death, aliens, drugs, torture, war, or something else? I once...
- 221
The vacuousness of Atheism
by Alexander A. Villarasa 10 years ago
Someone once said that if one does not believe in the existence of God, then one ends up believing anything and everything. This emanates from the perception that atheism's interpretation of existence is primarily nihilistic, devoid of purpose and meaning. For what is purpose and meaning but an...
- 139
In this 21st century have the privileged got too greedy?
by Andrew Spacey 5 years ago
In this 21st century have the privileged got too greedy?If as humans all we need is food&water, shelter, love, work and belief shouldn't we be cutting down on our material luxuries?Is corporate greed to blame for the current recession and financial anxiety?Are tax havens for the rich...
- 135
Do you really know the difference between agnostic and atheist?
by Cattleprod Media 13 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.