Are modern religions beginning to crumble?
[quote="snake321"]But my point is, do any of you think religion is crumbling away?]
Western Europe (include the British isles) is becoming increasing secularized.
The relationship between the Protestant churches and their flock is somewhat different largely then the one between the Vatican and it's flock. In many cases, notably England, Germany, and Scandinavia, there are state sponsored churches that get tax payer dollars. Additionally, the political orientation of these churches is essentially flipped (and I am speaking of the hierarchy, not say an individual bishop). On issues such as women in the priesthood, birth-control, and gay-marriage the Protestant churches (to varrying degrees) are far more liberal then the Vatican. In addition, the National Council of Churches, which represents many Protestant congregations around the world officially gives a thumbs up to the People's Republic of China's state run churches (which endorse everything the gov't does). The Vatican has refused to buckle on this and excommunicated a bishop who cooperated with the Chinese government. 10% of China's population is estimated to be Christian and most of them attend illegal churches. The Vatican gives recognition to Taiwan, which is unacceptable to the PRC.
On economic issues, the Vatican and the Protestant churches both fairly similar, adopting official lines rejecting laisse-fair policies.
Eastern Europe, with the exception of Poland and Czechoslovakia, became fairly secular, during the period of Soviet domination. Census results show most Russians consider themselves non-religious. The Asiatic former Soviet nations have the most secular Muslims in the world, except for perhaps Albania. Many in this area very well may consider themselves Russian before Muslim. An exception to this is Chenyna, where Russia's brutal invasion allowed for an increased in radical Islam to spread.
Accurate statistics are not easy to get in most of the Muslim world because of tyrannical regimes, however there a religious revival began in the early 20th century. This occurred during a period of rapid secularization, which shows the inherent instability in regards to such matters. Religious tensions are strong enough that cartoons (some forged) in the Netherlands caused riots which occured throughout the Muslim world. Fatwa's were issued demanding severe punishment for the action, and demands for restrictions against offending Muslims came from the Muslim countries' ambassadors. This is hardly a new phenomena.
There has been much Muslim immigration into Europe over the last several decades. This is from various parts of the Islamic words, and different parts of that world have different cultural specifics. It does seem clear however that the current general religious malaise felt by Europeans is not being felt by this new immigrant population.
The United States and to a greater degree Canada have had increased securalization in the last several decades. There have been declining church attendance, as well as less willingness to take seriously religious teachings (especially those in regards to morals and family). The Roman Catholic Church perhaps paradoxically saw severe decline after it's Vatican II reforms. It cannot be said that liberal churches have done any better however in attendance. The one type of church that are those who stress more active participation. They have been particularly successfully in the South.
In the last few years a rift has occurred in the Anglican community (The Presbyterian Church in the United States) over the issue of same-sex marriage, and the appointment of gay bishops. A split has occurred between the more liberal North American church, and the more conservative African church (with some individual churches joining the Africans). There have been some recent much hyped discussions between the Vatican and the African Anglicans, however the two sides were quick to downplay any possible rumors of a possible union.
It's 12:06AM EST. I am really not qualified to write on this. The story of the exploding Christian population in The Southern Hemisphere is a story onto itself.
Last edited by jimservo on 03 Mar 2007, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is a controversial position. I take controversial positions too.
When you say "overcome their inner animals," "by law and by force," what, precisely, do you mean? What force? Would the democratic, or constitutional process be subverted?
And again, "certain things such as irrational bigotry needs to be outlawed."
What would you define as "irrational bigotry?" Racism, sexism, class hatred, homophobia, ethnic hatred, hating a particular religious group, hating a political party? Have I said anything that will be outlawed?
Religions like Christianity and Islam that use fear of the end to gain control will die away as life time length increases.
In fact, right now I'm trying to write a book about what happens when humans discover ways to lengthen lifetimes to several centuries before they even show age.
The first thing that happens is Christianity and Islam start a slow downward spiral while Buddhism and LaVey Satanism become the two dominant religons of the Earth.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
It is a controversial position. I take controversial positions too.
When you say "overcome their inner animals," "by law and by force," what, precisely, do you mean? What force? Would the democratic, or constitutional process be subverted?
And again, "certain things such as irrational bigotry needs to be outlawed."
What would you define as "irrational bigotry?" Racism, sexism, class hatred, homophobia, ethnic hatred, hating a particular religious group, hating a political party? Have I said anything that will be outlawed?
What I mean is, as much as I like the idea of what america stands for (on paper anyhow), I think in some ways America is too free for our own good. Things that are common since wrongs like being ignorant and biggoted towards a legitimate group of people should be outlawed. However, someone who is blatantly irresponsible and biggoted, or trying to justify acting like an ape, if we discriminate against them then it's justified discrimination. Theyr behavior would not be in accordance the the greater well being of society. We need to try and slowly work towards making a utopian society possible one day.
by law or by force, I meant that if they don't wanna overcome their inner genetic animals, then they need to be made to, if through no other way than a think tank. Totalitarianism is merely a buzz word to keep people away from the common truth. I do believe in freedom, but to a logical degree. One has to want to improve themselves. By improving themselves, they are improving society. Freedom needs to be balanced with responsibility to do what is right, for the greater good of humanity. This greater good doesn't follow a pattern, it's a proccess of common since morality that I've dubbed Common Law Methodology. Theyr morals that pretty much anyone from any background could generally agree too. The decisive factor to right or wrong action lies in if someone's action is harming an innocent cognitive, sentient being.
When did America stand for outlawing specific beliefs? Again, please name some beliefs that you would outlaw. Name the penalties for violating your "forbidden beliefs" doctrine.
Question? Should the people you want to just shut up just just outlaw your beliefs on the logic that if persons such as yourself ever got control you would establish an authoritarian state? There is precedent for banning political groups in the United States, the Nazi Party was banned for a time (I do not personally support the banning of political parties).
This is the precise justification dictators have claimed in clamping down on their populations. And despite what you claim, totalitarianism is not just a "buzz word." You are attempting to justify silencing political opposition for "the common good." There is no possible moral justification for such action.
I ask again, would anything I have said be declared illegal in your "utopian society?"
Look, The founders had a multitude of views on religion. They generally weren't particular pro-Catholic, certainly. But I am not sure what this or that particular quote is suppose to mean other then starting a quote war, or a quote with contextual context war.
Just because they believed in God (or a supreme being of some kind) does not mean they were Christians. In fact, the concept of atheism as we know it today was unheard of back then. Many of the founding fathers could be described as Deists -- they believed in a supreme being or creator of some sort, but were not part of any organized church or group.
BTW, I'm an atheist myself. But my own view of religion is "Whatever gets you through the day". People can believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they extend me the same courtesy.
And I agree with you about Richard Dawkins -- he is a jerk, and gives us laid-back atheists a bad name.
_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips
I agree. Jefferson, and probably Madison (he was very private) were deists. Adams and Franklin were Unitarians, although very faithful ones. The rest of the Founding Fathers a rather wide variety of religious views. Certainly influenced by the Enlightenment. There was one Catholic from Maryland in the wider group although I do not remember his name.
I've read a few books by that Dawkins chap and they were very good. Though he doesn't hide his opinion of creationists and their ilk, he does explain current scientific opinion on subjects such as evolution and genetics very clearly in a way that people with little or no scientific training can understand, and does so with an effectiveness that makes it impossible to resist the temptation to find out more. Anyway, I don't think your assertion that he backs eugenics is correct. He may have called for a debate on the subject, but no more than that. Of course, if you believe I'm wrong I'd be glad for you to direct me to evidence to the contrary.
When did America stand for outlawing specific beliefs? Again, please name some beliefs that you would outlaw. Name the penalties for violating your "forbidden beliefs" doctrine.
Question? Should the people you want to just shut up just just outlaw your beliefs on the logic that if persons such as yourself ever got control you would establish an authoritarian state? There is precedent for banning political groups in the United States, the Nazi Party was banned for a time (I do not personally support the banning of political parties).
This is the precise justification dictators have claimed in clamping down on their populations. And despite what you claim, totalitarianism is not just a "buzz word." You are attempting to justify silencing political opposition for "the common good." There is no possible moral justification for such action.
I ask again, would anything I have said be declared illegal in your "utopian society?"
Beliefs in bigotry should be outlawed, theyr outlawed in European democracies. Because it leads to bad things, tribal dominance struggles between a perp group and a victim group. Religion is already prooven wrong, atleast in the interpretation that society takes on them. People need to evolve beyond hate and ignorance, in order to be able to live in peace.
Making people do what is right not just morally, but for the well being of the species, isn't totalitarian, it's looking out for what is, logically and non-biasedly, good for all of humanity. Like, if you were going to go shoot some innocent person and I tried to stop you, would that make me totalitarian?
Throughout evolutionary history, some men have had to resort to hostile actions for the good of humanity. But this should only be neccessary in making a world where such sacrifices are unneccesary, and it should also be understood that if someone is to be killed, it's not to be mean or blood-thirsty so much as it is looking out for the whole of society, as that person would only cause more suffering, for they can't totally control what they are (but people need to push themselves through this stuff, man has to overcome nature). The party system is just part of a tribal based economy. We shouldn't need parties to blindly follow everything they tell us to, as most people do. We should have more decisions in electing leaders, instead of 2 we should have atleast 4 or 5 people running, and the people should vote on them. But, political theory-of-mind needs to be cast aside atleast until people can become a less greedy, selfish, controlling, evil species.
Nothing you said would be outlaws because you were inquiring something, asking questions is the key to knowledge. But, to seek the truth, one needs to look from all perspectives, not just their own, and be able to call the shots down the middle in a logical fashion. Logically, religion as most people view them has already been prooven wrong. The truth is something that needs to be objectively searched for, which may take a many generations. The more we discover truth, the more we will be able to live in a peaceful society, as knowing the truth will calm alot of sub-conscious insecurities of not knowing that lead people to religion in the first place. Religion is dangerous too because it always manages to develope into extremes (same with parties), and leads to more wars.
Violence should be an absolute last resort
Basically I do believe in freedom as much as possibly within logically productive grounds. Freedom to be blatantly ignorant is taking freedom too far, where it's no longer freedom, it's chaos (be it organized or disorganized). Freedom should come with responsibility to 1. self, and 2. community. We need to also become higher-thought creatures, especially alot of NT people.
It is also neccessary to ad, that only the intellectual elite should be placed in powerful positions in society, because they have a very important job which requires alot of intelligence.
Tribalist behavior on the whole needs to be outlawed, but we should take baby steps in the beginning as this would be a huge change for alot of people. Bigotry is without a doubt the most detrimental tribalist contraption, as it leads to division and oppression, and should follow a 3 strike policy. If they strike out, they strike out with their lives. But this should be an absolute last resort.
Back to the original question,
Humanism is a religion. See the Supreme court ruling: Torcaso vs. Watkins. It doesn't have a god, like Buddhism doesn't. It has a highest object of devotion and a moral code based upon that devotion, like all other religions. It is modern.
In the last century, two branches of Humanism, communism and national socialism, were locked in total war with each other. It was called World War 2. National Socialism was crushed. Communist Humanism in East Europe finally died of old age in the late twentieth century. Unfortunately, Humanism survived in America and Asia. In the last several years, Red China went from Communism to Fascism without any change in government -- there isn't any real difference.
In Europe, Humanism took over with the help of witchcraft and a rotted-out, worldly version of Christianity. Humanism in Europe is in danger of being swept aside by Islam that the leadership have allowed to infiltrate their midst due to "open mindedness." There will be a battle for survival there soon between Humanism and Islam.
In America, Christianity fared better because of freedom from an "official" religion. The various religions had to compete and fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest religion has kept Christianity somewhat strong. Unfortunately, the Christians were conned into allowing Humanism to take over all the reins of influence and power with the help of witchcraft, sorcery, Masonry and Gnosticism. They brought in Buddhism and Hinduism to help the coalition against the Christians. A diverse alliance like that wouldn't survive the crushing of Christianity.
Fortunately, the coalition is turning up the heat on the Christians enough to make them feel the persecution. Now Christians know what to do when there is persecution. They are starting to pray to God for revival. When the economy collapses, they all will be praying in earnest. God's drawing of people to Christianity in America won't be far away.
Yeah, I can see humanism becoming to liberalism what christianity was to conservatives, a fanatical religious-based dictatorial structure. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't humanism another name for the pc religion?
-- note -- I am not really dictatorial, I do believe in freedom, within reasonable bounds to the greater good of humanity. I do think some things shouldn't be as free as they are though. While I reject the party system, I actually think we need MORE choices for leadership. And people should have the right to vote on them. It's a matter of realising which freedoms need to be restricted (negative freedoms, such as views based on apathy, ignorance, selfishness, etc), and which ones should be kept (positive freedoms, such as views that analyse a situation from all perspectives and is conducive to a brighter community).
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Modern jazzy tunes |
03 Jul 2025, 3:55 am |
Anyone Here Like Older Music Better Than Modern Music? |
02 May 2025, 10:28 pm |