What is the purpose of religion?
-
Reverend Satan wrote:
But I think that is the essence of the problem. If goverenment recognizes no higher moral authority, than it is the moral authority.
The state has no need to be a moral authority. It should derive its legal authority from those it governs by some agreed representative mechanism that allows for change. It should reflect the moral sensibilities of those governed rather than specify what is or is not moral. In the end, the moral authority in any civilization is a consensus of its members, although they may sometimes blame their consensus on a supposed higher power. It is still their consesus and their responsibility. If the state or the church tell you to do something immoral, it is still your responsibility to accept or reject the correctness of their opinion.
Reverend Satan wrote:
What Separation of Church and state is really supposesd to be about is the separation of legal authority from moral auhority.
Actually, I don't think separation of church and state has anything at all to do with moral authority. It has to do with preventing any church from becoming the legal authority, rather than forcing the state to be the moral authority. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- modified at 16:21 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
Rob Graham wrote:
The state has no need to be a moral authority. It should derive its legal authority from those it governs by some agreed representative mechanism that allows for change. It should reflect the moral sensibilities of those governed rather than specify what is or is not moral. In the end, the moral authority in any civilization is a consensus of its members, although they may sometimes blame their consensus on a supposed higher power. It is still their consesus and their responsibility. If the state or the church tell you to do something immoral, it is still your responsibility to accept or reject the correctness of their opinion.
Agreed. But that is an ideal which has yet to be achieved.
Rob Graham wrote:
Actually, I don't think separation of church and state has anything at all to do with moral authority. It has to do with prevent any church from becoming the legal authority, rather than forcing the state to be the moral authority.
But it is a two way street. If the state uses the concept of Separation of Church and State to so effectively inhibit the expression of religions moral sesntiment that it is 'compelled' to step in to assume the role of moral authority - what have you achieved? I think it has everything to do with moral authority. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
What an interesting question. I think I remember being told not to ask such questions when I was a little kid in sunday-school. But I think it is still a great question. Why would an entity that posses the knowledge of the universe care whether or not a dysfunctional group like us worships? It really does defy rational thought. One fun story that took a shot at this question is "American Gods"[^] by Neil Gaimon. If you truly are interested the question I’d recommend it. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Chris Austin wrote:
"American Gods"[^] by Neil Gaimon
Excellent story! Have read Neverwhere[^]? Another great story from Gaiman. Just noticed he has a new one out, too. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
'Convenient semantics' "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
'Convenient semantics' "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I don't think that's what the Greeks had in mind ;P --
-
He's like a son to me! :) Actually, I wish my own son had the passion to get into a good argument. If it ain't nintendo, he doesn't want to talk about it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 16:29 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
He's like a son to me! :) Actually, I wish my own son had the passion to get into a good argument. If it ain't nintendo, he doesn't want to talk about it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 16:29 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
You could always charge tax on the Nintendo. That way 1) he'll stop playing 2) understand the idea of "liberalism"1 1 N.B. not the original meaning of liberalism --
-
I don't think that's what the Greeks had in mind ;P --
Screw the Greeks! Those pedantic bastards! "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
A.A. wrote:
Ultimately Allah has wisdom for whatever he does
Hey, is that the same Allah dude who keeps having people blown up all over the planet? Sorry, but he kind of seems like an asshole to me. What I'm curous about is where he finds all those virgins. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Reverend Satan wrote:
What I'm curous about is where he finds all those virgins.
i can understand why are you asking this,such question arises in a society where its difficult to find a virgin[^] and that`s why in most cases,father field is left blank[^] in birth certificates. by the way,did you check yours :laugh: MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
-
Screw the Greeks! Those pedantic bastards! "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I almost did that once. Well, a female greek citizen anyway. :rolleyes: --
-
Isn't there something like that in Shakespeare, "The tempest"? Rui A. Rebelo I don't smoke, don't gamble, don't sniff, don't drink and don't womanize. My only defect is that I lie just a little bit, sometimes. Tim Maia (brazilian pop singer)
-
Isn't there something like that in Shakespeare, "The tempest"? Rui A. Rebelo I don't smoke, don't gamble, don't sniff, don't drink and don't womanize. My only defect is that I lie just a little bit, sometimes. Tim Maia (brazilian pop singer)
Hm.. I don't know. I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare. :~ --
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The state has no need to be a moral authority. It should derive its legal authority from those it governs by some agreed representative mechanism that allows for change. It should reflect the moral sensibilities of those governed rather than specify what is or is not moral. In the end, the moral authority in any civilization is a consensus of its members, although they may sometimes blame their consensus on a supposed higher power. It is still their consesus and their responsibility. If the state or the church tell you to do something immoral, it is still your responsibility to accept or reject the correctness of their opinion.
Agreed. But that is an ideal which has yet to be achieved.
Rob Graham wrote:
Actually, I don't think separation of church and state has anything at all to do with moral authority. It has to do with prevent any church from becoming the legal authority, rather than forcing the state to be the moral authority.
But it is a two way street. If the state uses the concept of Separation of Church and State to so effectively inhibit the expression of religions moral sesntiment that it is 'compelled' to step in to assume the role of moral authority - what have you achieved? I think it has everything to do with moral authority. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Reverend Satan wrote:
If the state uses the concept of Separation of Church and State to so effectively inhibit the expression of religions moral sesntiment
As I said earlier, the principle of separation of church and state should not be used as an excuse to suppress (or inhibit) the observance of any or all religion, then it oversteps its bounds and its citizens should change it. By the same token, I don't think it is practical (or reasonable, even) to expect a one-to-one correspondance between what the state deems legal or not, and what any particular group (including the majority) may hold to be moral or not. A reasonable correspondence is to be expected, but that is all. It is ok for the state to be comfortable with the majority religion of its citizens, as long as it does not act as an agent of that religion. Nor should the state banish all religion from its daily business soley on the premise that it must be "separate". That kind of extreme secularaism, I also object to. "True believers" of any stripe are to be regarded with suspicion, IMO. I happen to believe that it is OK for the US (for example) to observe Christmas as a secular as well as religious holiday (and even to display Christian chrismas decor on public property, in keeping with the traditional roots of that holiday), just as it would be appropriate for Iraq to observe a muslim holy day as a secular one as well. On the other hand, I do not believe we should give state funds to religious organizations for social work (unless they are willing and able to concientiously and verifiably forego proselytizing while engaged in that work). Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke -- modified at 16:48 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
Is there a difference between religion and spirituality? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
The truly spiritual among us seem to be much more tolerant than the truly religious, which suggests some difference. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
awesome Rob,i wish you were a US president MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan
By the way, I think it is a practical impossibility for a political leader to also be a moral or intellectual leader. Polictics is about compromise, the other two are absolutist in nature. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
For mankind it is probably an excuse to start a fight, but what could the diety possibly gain from it?
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
For mankind it is probably an excuse to start a fight,
Man doesn't need an excuse to start a fight. ;-) I suppose a lot depends on your defintion of religion. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Ra was head of the egyptian pantheon, he eventualy came to such prominance (possibly because of the on going power struggle between pharoah and the priesthood that characterised egypt) that his worship is considered one of the earliest forms of monothiesm. "A Hymn To Amen-Ra ... president of all the gods ... Lord of the heavens ... Lord of Truth ... maker of men; creator of beasts ... Ra, whose word is truth, the Governor of the world, the mighty one of valour, the chiefs who made the world as he made himself. His forms are more numerous than those of any god ... "Adoration be to thee, O Maker of the Gods, who hast stretched out the heavens and founded the earth! ... Lord of eternity, maker of the everlastingness ... creator of light ... "He heareth the prayer of the oppressed one, he is kind of heart to him that calleth upon him, he delivereth the timid man from the oppressor ... He is the Lord of knowledge, and Wisdom is the utterance of his mouth. "He maketh the green herb whereon the cattle live, and the staff of life whereon men live. He maketh the fish to live in the rivers, and the feathered fowl in the sky. He giveth life to that which is in the egg ... "Hail to thee, O thou maker of all these things, thou ONLY ONE. In his mightiness he taketh many forms." All sounds a little familiar :) And given all that time the Judeans spent hanging round in Egypt.. http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm [^] , the argument here is that polythiesm was a corruption of an original montheistic faith, which has of course been corrected by Christianity. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 16:16 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
I thought the first form of monotheism [edit]in Egypt[/edit] was brought by Akhen-Aten[^], who introduced the one and only god, Aten. Quite an interesting story with all the power struggle against the priests and everything else. Edbert P. Sydney, Australia -- modified at 18:05 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
I almost did that once. Well, a female greek citizen anyway. :rolleyes: --
A Helenic disappointment? ;) Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
I thought the first form of monotheism [edit]in Egypt[/edit] was brought by Akhen-Aten[^], who introduced the one and only god, Aten. Quite an interesting story with all the power struggle against the priests and everything else. Edbert P. Sydney, Australia -- modified at 18:05 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
Heavily edited, never post post pub. Thanks for the better reference. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 18:34 Tuesday 6th December, 2005
-
A Helenic disappointment? ;) Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Mirza Ghalib wrote:
For mankind it is probably an excuse to start a fight,
Man doesn't need an excuse to start a fight. ;-) I suppose a lot depends on your defintion of religion. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]