No One Cares About Your Damn Religion

[mr blur]

From the Huffington Post:

Have you ever noticed how God always agrees with you? Not as often with your neighbor, your congressman, your family or even the pope. But he (or she, or it,) definitely agrees with you. Other people just aren't enlightened enough to realize that. Yet.

Funny how that works.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/religion-and-politics_b_4764865.html

[Scuba]

1. Did you ever notice how the vast majority of religious people ...

... are of the same religion as their parents? Weird coincidence, eh?

[hrmjustin]

2. Not me.

[Scuba]

3. "Vast majority" does not equal "everyone".

[hrmjustin]

8. I know my friend. my parents are not believers.

They were raised catholic but decided laterin life it was not for them.

I became Episcopalian at18.

[trotsky]

9. When did they become non-believers? n/t

[hrmjustin]

10. My father I think in his 20's and my mother when we were young.

They got disillusioned. Now I would call them agnostic.

[Brettongarcia]

16. But? An Episcopalian/Anglican is just a cross between a Catholic and and unbeliever : )

So in a way, your present religion WAS totally a product of your upbringing ....

[hrmjustin]

17. To be honest my switching was less about leaving the RCC and more about

joining TEC.

As for it bing a cross between a Catholic and an Unbeliever I don't see it that way.

[Brettongarcia]

32. Episcopalianism is more liberal than Catholicism, at least?

More individual freedom? Rowan and NT Wright?

It's not the most fixed kind of religion, these days?

[hrmjustin]

34. Depends on the Episcopalian.

We have the same thoughts on the resurrection as other mainline denomiations.

We are not a church that is too obsessed with doctrine but that is the US church. Worldwide the church has very conservative national churches.

[Brettongarcia]

38. Shelby Spong seems fairly liberal?

[hrmjustin]

46. He is but he is retired. Most Episcopalians are liberal but not all.

[Brettongarcia]

53. For a long time I was attracted to Episcopalianism

As I recall, it was the Protestant denomination of many of the American founders. Apparently it was originally the American version of Anglicanism; the Church of England?

On the one hand therefore, the Episcopal church is very, very traditional. Though on the other hand? The Founders were revolutionaries.

In fact, there is something radical, in American conservative attachment to the founders: the founders expressed a revolutionary spirit for democracy, people say. And there were a few radical innovations in religion too: Protestantism; the rebellion against the Church. And Deism in part.

Deism in particular has always interested me; since in some ways it seemed to make room in religion for science. Or seemed to allow both. At least by partition. Though we need more.

These days I think I'm pretty consistent with the American Revolution and its principles: I'm interested in still-revolutionary ideas about religion and science. Involving the breaking away from older religious models that many of us regard as corrupted.

In some ways, I sometimes feel close to Spong. Or in Anglicanism, to Rowan Williams and NT Wright.

[hrmjustin]

54. I detest Rowan because he is a coward.

He refused to stand up for LGBT folk.

The Episcopal Church is the American church of the Anglican Communion. Like Eastern Orthodox Christians an Roman Catholics, Anglicans believe in Apostolic Succession. That is the belief our ordinations are from an unbroken link going back to the Apostles. We have bishops, priests, and deacons.
We also use the same creeds as the RCC and orthodox churches.

Many of the founders were Episcopalians so we have a strong connection to the revolution. You can see that in the fact that unlike many Anglican churches worldwide we are a democracy. Our bishops and rectors are elected as are our vestries which are our parish councils.

As for Spong I always liked him but do not always see eye to eye to him.

[Brettongarcia]

55. Fair enough

[cbayer]

4. Did you ever notice how the vast majority of people...

… are of the same political persuasion as their parents? Weird coincidence, eh?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx

[Scuba]

5. Similar (same?) dynamic.

[cbayer]

6. Of course.

People raised within a certain tradition tend to form their identity and community around that tradition.

While some people make rather radical departures from their parents, they are the exceptions and many return at a later date.

So I guess I don't really get your point.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. That would be a more interesting question when asked of adults

That would be closer to what we're discussing here, anyway - the religious beliefs of adults compared to their parents, not beliefs of children. That 13-17 year olds are that independent-thinking isn't that surprising.

[cbayer]

13. I don't think the stats would be that different, but I can't find anything

that's really comparable.

Still, I don't get the point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. The point is that most people believe what they've been told to believe, as children

The numbers of people brought up Christian who then become Muslim, Hindu etc. are very small (far fewer than the teens saying they're more liberal than their parents, for instance). It's rare for someone to actually try and work out which, if any, of the major religion is true, and then switch as a result.

Politics is also largely recognised as a matter of opinion - what people think is most likely to be best for themselves or society. Whereas religions claim to proclaim truths - often, The Truth.

[cbayer]

15. It's more complex than just religious beliefs, though.

It has to do with identity, community, family ties and traditions.

Unless you have some data to dispute it, I think the logical conclusion about religious beliefs and political beliefs is that they probably follow the same trends when it comes to parents and children.

I still don't get the point. So what if people continue in the religious (or political) traditions of their families? In fact, I think continuing the political traditions without questioning is probably more bothersome.

But then, religion is poison and politics is ambrosia, right?

[Brettongarcia]

31. The point is that religions are not really convincing; family habits are more compelling.

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

People aren't even really entirely choosing their religion by free rational choice; just by Habit.

This means religions just aren't really rationally, objectively compelling; people don't chose them rationally, or objectively.

Or even, our religion is not really even "chosen." They are semi-automatically inculcated; or "caught." All without a real act of will.

And if our own Will is not involved? Then ... many key religious ideas championing our "own free choice" to embrace the Lord, do not really apply.

Religion is acquired by an unthinking reflex. Or at most, tribal/familial loyalty. So that?

The process by which we acquire religion is not quite ... respectable.

[cbayer]

33. Relgions aren't convincing.

Try telling that to the massive number of people who are convinced.

And in many situations, religion provides them with better solutions than their dysfunctional families.

If your hypothesis were true, it would be difficult to account for all the people that find religion, lose religion, change religion or are moving in between their entire life.

It may have been an "unthinking reflex" for you at some point in your life, but you gain nothing by applying that to all the thinking people who have religious beliefs.

And it's highly respectable. You don't embrace it, but that's just you.

[Brettongarcia]

39. I think Atheists are tying to tell the religious that what they THINK is respectible, isn't

The Bible constantly warned about bad and, as it often says, "false" things, even in our very holiest men. Even the highest Christian leaders, like the Apostle Peter (Mat. 16.23).

And it tells us that one apocalyptic, heaven-shattering "day" or another, every individual is supposed to suddenly see that. Al too clearly.

You would think the sight of thousands of priests sexually molesting boys, would be a first eye-opener. But apparently not.

[cbayer]

45. This lumping of "atheists" and "the religious" really weakens your argument, imo.

There is no "they" there.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Disambiguating: the referent of "they" was "the religious." I should I have made that clearer.

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2014, 06:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Addendum, on a perhaps unrelated note. Here and elsewhere I'll condemn the way that most religion is taught: preachers demanding that we sit down and listen for a hour week after week; and then listen to endless, hypnotic repetition.

In effect, enforced church attendance every week and endless repetition, by rote of the same phrases, is essentially a propaganda technique. More than usefully pedagogical. It has certain affinities with hypnotism. It is not the best method of persuasion. Dialogue, debate, is better.

However? Sometimes it is necessary to fight fire with fire. If atheists for their own part want to just throw in their own phrases, over and over, finally this is a necessary thing; it is necessary as counterprogramming.

To one endlessly repetitive litany, another for a time, must be presented.

The rubbed-in stain, has to be repetitively, rubbed out.

[CFLDem]

26. I feel bad for the people that go more conservative.

[cbayer]

27. I've met some people who were raised by hippies and absolutely

rejected everything their parents ever stood for politically and culturally.

Total straight arrows, driven by capitalism and some even Ayn Randian.

Fascinating group that is.

[Brettongarcia]

40. To say "most" people follow the religion of their parents, does not mean "all"

As for the Michael Fox-like kids of hippies, who became conservatives? You yourself don't really like that fully, do you?

They're the 80's neo cons, like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and (in Catholicism) George Weigel. Who hijacked the churches, and turned them toward radical fundamentalism.

[cbayer]

47. I myself don't really like what fully?

That Michael Fox became conservative? I could care less.

I'm losing you again.

[Brettongarcia]

50. A few posts ago you felt that the Right, conservatives, had hijacked Christianity in the 80's?

Probably in the comments on an Atheist singing "My Sweet Lord"?

[rug]

11. Did you ever notice how the same people . . . .

post the same flamebait?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123019783#post4

[struggle4progress]

18. There are only two possible explanations. One is that it's just a coincidence. But

people only refer to "coincidence" when they can't explain something in a better way. And that's a pathetic cop-out, that refers to some supernatural woo: there's really no such thing as coincidence

Since we must reject the first explanation as nonsense, we are forced to accept the only other explanation: witches make them do it.

[cbayer]

19. I think an exorcism is in order!

[struggle4progress]

20. Many doctors recommend exorcizing daily

But they still seem divided on whether it's better to smoke Camels, Chestertons, or Lucky Strikes

[cbayer]

21. Do you know what happens if you don't pay your exorcist?

You get repossessed

[struggle4progress]

22. I'd forgotten about that documentary!

[cbayer]

24. Repoman?

Loved it.

[Brettongarcia]

41. Today most don't believe in "witches." But there HAVE been sly, manipulative people in religion.

Or just bad trends. Like too many people blindly trusting and believing whatever they were told as children.

[rexcat]

23. The referenced article in the OP is not flame bait...

as you suggest nor do I suspect the OP in this forum was meant to be flame bait. The article in the OP was a well thought out opinion on religion and atheist views.

There is a little nasty going on below your post but that does not surprise me. It is also my opinion you and the ones below are showing a lack of class. It is the same old bull...

If you want to make some constructive comments on the article that would be welcome but I don't think, for the most part, that is your intent in this thread.

[cbayer]

25. Lack of class? Really. Not flame bait? Really.

You might want to check out the OP's posts in this group over the past month, including the one that was hidden by jury.

Talk about lack of class.

[rexcat]

28. So are your are saying its okay...

to go down to his level? His OP today was not flame bait. As I stated the article referenced in his OP was excellent and his snark in other treads in this forum are irrelevant as is the one that was hidden by a "jury" considering the quality of the article in his OP in this thread.

If you don't like or care for mr blur's posts that is your prerogative but on occasion when an OP has value it should be taken as such. Even the most obnoxious religious (IMO) and obnoxious non-religious (IYO&Os) in this forum can have good posts.

[cbayer]

29. I'm no where near his level. Not even close.

Please.

The article was not posted in good faith nor was he interested in any kind of civil discussion. You don't have to look far to figure that out.

C'mon rexcat. He's getting some playful responses but no one has been attacked here, which is far different than this OP's usual MO.

[rexcat]

35. Part of my response has to do with...

my general attitude today. I had some dental work today and the last two weeks at work have been less than pleasant. My two boys are auditioning for college for the past month at various Universities and it won't stop until the end of the first week in March. I will be so glad when this process is over with and they pick a University that wants them. When I read the entire thread it left a sour taste in my mouth and I am less than tolerant today. That said...

I would have cross-posted the OP but I did not have the time to do it and mr blur beat me to it. I am not sure whoever cross-posted this would have gotten any better responses. I rather enjoyed the article. There were some really good points, if not all of them, and I hope to use them down the line. It would have been interesting to see some of the posters in this forum discuss some of the points in the article but this thread is beyond that at this point.

mr blur is not the only abrasive poster in this forum. When some on this forum see posts from mr blur there is an automatic response that he is not interested in civil discourse which may or may not be true. Of course you or rug could ask him. If he were to be snarky about it then I think you would have a valid point otherwise not so much.

[rug]

36. A fair point. I'll ask him.

[cbayer]

44. Ugh, dental work.

Makes me grumpy, too.

Sounds like your plate is pretty full. I remember the anxiety of waiting for the university responses (plus the anticipatory anxiety of writing those massive checks that were going to be part of the deal, lol).

I think if the piece had been posted by yourself or some of the other people that post here, it would have gotten a different response. The headline is provocative and inflammatory, but the piece itself is really directed at the religious right. That's a topic that most people that post here tend to agree on and can discuss in a civil and productive fashion.

Frankly, there are some members who post in this group who rarely if ever have anything constructive to say, but come in here only for the cage fight. mr. blur is certainly one of them, imo. If he has engaged in a civil back and forth, I have missed it. If he is interested in civil discourse, he is sure keeping it a secret.

I hope you are feeling better today and that your week brings more improvement.

[rug]

30. I disagree with you on intent.

Unless of course you believe that cross-posting "to get all dirty" means "to engage in reasoned discussion".

[Brettongarcia]

42. There are a couple of core questions that Religion has never answered;they need constant repetition

The "Problem of Evil" is one of them.

The evidence that most people don't really choose religion of their own free will, but by habit and massive brainwashing, is another.

Weekly sessions in "churches," where the same phrases are drilled into our heads, hypnotically; over and over. And over and over.

Makes you think of the Bible's warnings about "enchanters," and hypnotist "magicans," with their "illusions" and "false dreams." Early attempts to understand ... propagandists? Social manipulators?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

56. The Problem of Evil is easy to answer.

The standard explanation of evil is that we have free will, so that we should choose the good of our own accord, thus furthering God’s glory. That there are those who do not choose to do good is their fault, not God's.

No, the actual question is the "Problem of Pain". Evil is those things which people do which are wrong: Pride, anger, envy, greed, lust, sloth, gluttony, etc. Pain is "the thousand natural shocks our flesh is heir to": Disease, tornadoes, man-eating-sharks. we have no real answer to the Problem of Pain. Some have said that God allows suffering to teach us lessons and make us better. Thus, we have disappointment to teach us perseverance, pain so we learn to keep our hands out of the fire, unkindness from others to help us grow in charity, and so on.

The problem here is the "and so on." Famine, to teach us what? Earthquakes, for what reason? Cancer, to improve us how? The whole bleeding, dying, screaming, lying, cheating, rotting carcass of the world to uplift us to what end?

This simply does not work. For a few great souls, poverty may be a blessing; for everyone else, it is a curse. Now and then, a terminal disease ennobles, most of the time, it is just rotten. God as a teacher who uses such methods makes him the warden of the worst run penitentiary of all. T S Eliot described this in his poem "East Coker":

The whole earth is our hospital
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall
Die of the absolute paternal care
Which does pursue us everywhere.

For Christians, suffering remains impenetrable and incomprehensible, and provokes rebellion. Nor will the Christian blasphemously claim that God himself required Jesus' death as compensation for what we make of ourselves. Suffering may be intrinsic to the human condition; but it is not inherent in the grand design God has for the universe. Given God as creator and shepherd, and given the divine presence in the world in the person of Christ, suffering of the innocent is unfathomable.

Even in their denials, skeptics sometimes show a better appreciation for the idea of God than do believers. They take seriously the contradiction between a loving God and the reality of evil and pain. Believers do not always face the gulf between evil and pain and an all-powerful God who opposes them. Reason fails before suffering and evil. All attempts to explain and interpret their existence, even in the context of Jesus’ saving work, seem to treat evil on the same level as good, as if it had a right to exist. The proper reaction to suffering and evil is to offer resistance, to act in a way meant to turn history to good effect. The Scriptures do not explain suffering and evil, but call on Christians to resist it and eradicate its causes.

Just as an aside, one of my favorite science fiction stories is Poul Anderson's "The Problem of Pain." In it, Anderson posits a monotheistic alien race with a concept of God that answers the problem of pain, but cannot explain why there is evil.

[rug]

37. Have you posted this seeking civil discourse?

[Brettongarcia]

43. I say this post makes a cogent, valid, and timeless point. And makes it politely.

And if the title is an eye-catcher? That's just good marketing.

[rug]

48. It has nothing to do with the article; it has to do with motive.

[Brettongarcia]

51. It's always hard to know/impugn motives. In any case, the post inspired a useful, sane conversation

[Warren Stupidity]

57. did somebody appoint you inquisitor?

[rug]

59. Did somebody appoint you inquisitor?

See #35.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=112232

I note there is still no reply.

[DesertFlower]

52. i was raised catholic. my mom was catholic but

my dad was either atheist/agnostic. my whole family -- aunts, uncles, etc. were catholic. i left the church in my early 20s.

my mom became a non-practicing catholic after my parents divorced when i was 14. a priest told her she was guilty because when she signed the separation papers she said she wouldn't contest a divorce. she never went back to church after that, but she always prayed to the blessed mother.

on the other hand my dad started going to the catholic church when he married his 2nd wife. was it just to please her? we had some talks as i got older and he was very much into edgar cayce and his readings. that contradicts the catholic church.

my late husband was raised catholic but from a very early age didn't believe in what he was taught. he went to catholic school like i did.

my sister NanceGreggs converted to judaism about 25 years ago. my other sister goes from atheist to catholic to baptist. we're not speaking so i have no idea what she believes now.

i'm not sure what i am. basically i'm an atheist but i do believe in reincarnation, angels, spirit guides.

i have no problem with people believing or not believing. that's a personal choice.

that being said in many ways i try to lead a christian life even though i don't accept jesus as my lord and savior. i like his messages, i.e., "did you feed me when i was hungry"? "did you give me shelter when i was homeless"? "did you take care of me when i was sick"? i've met many christians who IMO do not lead christian lives.

[cbayer]

58. Well, I for one care about your damn religion.

What a great story.

I think many, if not most, people get where they are by circuitous paths such as yours. I also have a family full of people in different places religiously. It makes for great holidays!

Did not know NanceGreggs was your sister. Sure do miss her around here, though we have butted heads on more than one accession.