Does life have ultimate meaning?

[Thats my opinion]

My thanks to those who took the trouble to respond to my latest post. Let me tell you what I am really about. I have a life-long concern about the relationship between ethics and politics. I wonder just how most of what gets written in the R/T forum has anything to do with Democratic politics. I think there is a profound relationship between what we hold as essential ethical principles and how they get acted out in political life. I despair over the number of religious people who have been seduced by right-wing political forces. There have been times when I have been ashamed to admit that I am a Christian. But then I am drawn back to the basic thrust of Christianity--and all religions for that matter. Probably the key religious foundational principle is "compassion." Karen Armstrong, one of the world's leading thinkers, has identified compassion as religion's basic principle. If that is true then there can be a positive relationship between religion and public policy. Of course religion is not the only force in that direction. Many non-religious people are just as alive to compassion as are religious people. But in this forum it is difficult to have that conversation because it seems to be dominated by those who want to deny that religion has anything positive to offer. I don't want want to convert anyone. I just want to affirm that historically religion has been that force which has offered the world a more human face. That point is made in the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women's movement, the peace movement, the rights of GLBTers. I know the downside of religion. How well I know it! But I know the downside of every other ism including atheism. But that does not deny the validity of what many non-believers have offered the world. I just don't major in pointing out the ugly side. Under attack I sometimes slip. I apologize. I would like the same treatment.

To the responses. There seemed to be a serious effort to define religion as doctrine not ethics so that it can be shot down. Doctrine is the secondary product of religious thought which is basically concern with the meaning of existence and how we humans can live together in this world. Issues like the creeds, the nature of baptism, transubstantiation etc. have not been on any theologians agenda since the middle ages. Some of you have not caught up to what theologians are really saying today. Slaying dead dragons might be fun but doesn't advance rational dialogue.

Experience, reason, culture are indeed ways to deal with the basic questions. Thank you. Religion that ignores his trilogy is moribund.
What we believe is one of the minds most powerful forces, be that belief from science, history, literature, music art or philosophy. I call this ethical system "the great conversation." We must listen to all these voices.

The Camus quote is solid. One of my favorite literary characters is the Dr. in "The Plague." He knew he couldn't cure anyone but survived by focusing on the person who was before him. Camus is a philosopher who is studied in every modern seminary. There is the core of
poor Sisyphus in all of us.

Now let's get on to trying to define the relationship between what we fundamentally believe and the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Isn't that why there is a R/T forum in the DU? Or is this just a dart board to take shots at religion?