and what they have to sell.. is a pale imitation of what some of us can remember what we bargained for to get away from for a short time from in the form of a "vacation"..
Really it's more like win,win,win. They produce nothing, there's no real accountability (nobody comes back and says "Hey, this holy spirit is the wrong size!") and they pay no taxes on what they make. Just make vague promises of whistling and fishing in Heaven and pass the plate. Not a bad gig if you have no shame whatsoever...
Religion - what a win/win for any organization. Pay us now and you get paid when you're dead. And no one has come back to the complaint department that we know of. Pickyour flavor - all have the same threatening promise of eternity.
There does seem to be way too many contradictions in most religions:
1. You're not worthy
2. BUT you can be made worthy...
3. You deserve the worst
4. BUT you can have more than you deserve if you follow these rules...
5. Life will suck
6. BUT there is a new and improved replacement life (and if you act now you get these great offers... our agents are standing by waiting for your call)
The trouble isn't with whether or not there is an intelligence bigger than we are... the problem is how people use fear tactics to manipulate others.
Lately my biggest frustration is with those of a religious ilk who think that their "special connection to the Awlmighty" gives them the right to stick their nose in peoples' business.
Can anybody tell me the difference between religion and politics? I can no longer see any difference...
The speration of church and state in the constitution was a stroke of genius...too bad it doesn't work very well. I'm thinking that religion and politics are the same thing and the cause of every senseless war...
...not to mention the repressive, violent, and disgusting lifestyles that the majority of the world's population embraces because of their religious beliefs...
Instead of religion...I vote for doing a bunch of LSD and listening to the Grateful Dead...
I suspect that the end result would be much better.
The speration of church and state in the constitution was a stroke of genius...too bad it doesn't work very well. I'm thinking that religion and politics are the same thing and the cause of every senseless war...
. . .
the idea that there can be "separation of church and state" is utter nonsense. My understanding of the constitution is that there is no official state religion. Religion will be there, but it can change just like the political parties.
the idea that there can be "separation of church and state" is utter nonsense. My understanding of the constitution is that there is no official state religion. Religion will be there, but it can change just like the political parties.
The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.
In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."[5]
As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.
[edit] Wall of separation
Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [6]
Recommended Posts
Ham
and what they have to sell.. is a pale imitation of what some of us can remember what we bargained for to get away from for a short time from in the form of a "vacation"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Really it's more like win,win,win. They produce nothing, there's no real accountability (nobody comes back and says "Hey, this holy spirit is the wrong size!") and they pay no taxes on what they make. Just make vague promises of whistling and fishing in Heaven and pass the plate. Not a bad gig if you have no shame whatsoever...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
what if a large part of what you gents call "religion" actually agrees with you completely?
and they only seem to disagree because they are decorating and celebrating the experience?
is it possible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't have a problem with it..
its just.. what agrees with me completely sometimes does not seem to agree with anyone else..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Uhh I dunno about that - we'd both agree completely on certain forms of agricultural practices I suspect
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
See quotes 3 and 4 in my sig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
There does seem to be way too many contradictions in most religions:
1. You're not worthy
2. BUT you can be made worthy...
3. You deserve the worst
4. BUT you can have more than you deserve if you follow these rules...
5. Life will suck
6. BUT there is a new and improved replacement life (and if you act now you get these great offers... our agents are standing by waiting for your call)
The trouble isn't with whether or not there is an intelligence bigger than we are... the problem is how people use fear tactics to manipulate others.
Lately my biggest frustration is with those of a religious ilk who think that their "special connection to the Awlmighty" gives them the right to stick their nose in peoples' business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
same non-science versus non-religion...welcome to the jungles of babylon, i guess
just pointing at a whole forest being slashed down in the name of invasive plants
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
sirguessalot - I don't think what I've written is at odds with what you've stated.
I just happen to think that religion(in all it's non-glory) brings out the worst in humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i agree, dooj...not at odds
...and i salute the partial modifiers ..."most religions" and such.
its just that the opposites of your points are equally as true as the points
(except for your last line about your frustration, perhaps)
and both sound science and sound religion seem to know this.
yet both of them (and therefore all) suffer from reducing "the trouble" and "the problem" down to the wrong thing
...because our "solutions" may solve something for someone in some way...but only perpetuates more problems.
such non-science can cause as much (if not more) harm to authentic religion as the non-religion does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Have you written to your congressperson? There should be some tax on organized religion to help fund investigations and recovery groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Can anybody tell me the difference between religion and politics? I can no longer see any difference...
The speration of church and state in the constitution was a stroke of genius...too bad it doesn't work very well. I'm thinking that religion and politics are the same thing and the cause of every senseless war...
...not to mention the repressive, violent, and disgusting lifestyles that the majority of the world's population embraces because of their religious beliefs...
Instead of religion...I vote for doing a bunch of LSD and listening to the Grateful Dead...
I suspect that the end result would be much better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i see sirguess's response more to do with the soul
and i'm a believer in the soul.... not religion as we call it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yeah, e..."as we call it"
language seems like a wilderness
and yep..."soul"...big wide word
glad to know i see something you see
welcome to babylon, i guess
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
is babylon a real place or just a place made up by religions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Babylon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
thanks. i probably could have done that myself huh? :)
so what's it mean "welcome to babylon" then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
the idea that there can be "separation of church and state" is utter nonsense. My understanding of the constitution is that there is no official state religion. Religion will be there, but it can change just like the political parties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.
In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."[5]
As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.
[edit] Wall of separation
Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
not sure what Mr. Jefferson means, it sounds silly though, of course you need to prohibit some free exercise, people can't do whatever they believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.