|
| Thread: What is a religion and what is not. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted May 19, 2009 08:57 AM |
|
|
What is a religion and what is not.
Moderator Warning : This thread is bound to have some very heated comments. Enter at your own risk. If you are offended by it, or upset by it, do not continue to read it. Although this will be moderated, both sides will be allowed to have their own opinion. Any posts making comments like "Do we need this?" or "This thread stinks" or anything similar will simply be deleted.
This is for the endless debates that a few members have been having and taking into just about every other thread. Have the debate here. What is a legitimate religion and what is not? Have at.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 09:04 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 09:05, 19 May 2009.
|
you know, when it comes to defining what a man made word means, I go to the man made source
reâ‹…liâ‹…gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
P.S. First noobs!
____________
What are you up to
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:17 AM |
|
|
The real question isn't what religion is.
The question is, what will a society CONSIDER a religion and what not. ARE there really objective standards or is this case where the jurisdictional part of a society "has to draw a line"?
If the question of religion has no impact on society whatsoever - let's say comparable to the question how many TVs a household may have - then no definition nor regulation is necessary. That's not the case, though. Most religions build organizations and require certain behaviour from their followers.
If, however, it is somehow important in the context of society, then society must define
a) the special rights a religion as an organization has (tax freedom, for example), if any
b) the freedom people have to follow their religion where other considerations apply as well.
c) and, yes, what is following a religion and what is following a whim.
This may involve so trivial things as the chiming of churchbells at uncommon times. Does a religion has the right to bother the others with bell-chiming at 6 am or not? Trivial indeed, but a valid question. What about processions? What about contradictions with the law? Some religions see things differently than the law: do women have equal rights or not?
So, I think this is not easily answered.
It's clear, though, that the more special rights people can claim from following a religion, the more important the question becomes, what a religion is.
My opinion is, that as soon as you divide state and religion (allowing "freedom of religion") it makes sense to cut on special rights as much as reasonable and possible, to cut on down on the importance of the question what is considered religion and what not:
If, people have LOTS of leeway, when they claim "following a religion" as in "more or special rights because of that", then it's obviously extremely important whether something is indeed considered a religion or not.
If no or not many special rights are involved, than it gets ever more irrelevant, and people really have "freedom of belief".
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
That is a good question and it is hard to define in a few sentences. One could explore this with several lengthy essays. But I will try to keep it short.
I agree with the US founding fathers that God has given man the right of freedom of religion. That I have the right to my religious beliefs and to practice those beliefs. The relationship of a man and his God comes before the relationship of a man with the state. The state has no right to interfere with the man's relationship with his God. That relationship is expressed as the man's own personal understanding of God and what God requires of him or his own understanding of what is holy, sacred, spiritual, or and the implications of such understanding.
Religion can be a deeply personal and intimate thing (and is to me.) Religion carries eternal (if you believe in an afterlife) and temporal consequences.
Fear and dread should enter the heart of anyone attempting to restrict the practice of such a weighty and personal thing unless there is absolutely no other alternative.
Religion may or may not acknowledge the existence of a deity. Religion usually involves how one relates to God (if the religion believes in a deity) as well as how one relates to man. Religion may or may not have rituals or sacraments. Religion may or may not involve gatherings with others or corporate worship or activities.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 11:45 AM |
|
|
Then what about those religions that require sacrfices? I am not talking 'devil' worshipers, but other religions that require things be killed? While I am all for the freedom of religion, there has to be some common sense in the matter, and some societal mandate that draws the line saying "OK this is not acceptable."
However, other religions (just an example, Christianity) would have no ability to say "This is morally wrong" because their religion (no offense) is no better then any other. So it would come down to society to do so. Yes, the other religions are members of society, so they would get one vote per person to decide the laws. If they can gather the most votes..so be it and good for them. However, the actual religious dictates should mean nothing when deciding. To me it logically boils down to this.
An it harm none, do as ye will. Yes that is Wiccan, but it is logical and a good line. Basically, if it does not impede other peoples rights..religious practices should not be hampered by the state or society at all. Killing somebody impedes their rights, just so you understand. You want to dance naked in moonlight around a bonfire..by all means.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 11:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Then what about those religions that require sacrfices? I am not talking 'devil' worshipers, but other religions that require things be killed? While I am all for the freedom of religion, there has to be some common sense in the matter, and some societal mandate that draws the line saying "OK this is not acceptable."
As a Christian I believe animal sacrifices are not necessary. However, I support the right of others to sacrifice animals that they own.
Quote:
However, other religions (just an example, Christianity) would have no ability to say "This is morally wrong" because their religion (no offense) is no better then any other.
I support the right of any individual to say this or that religion is better than another or is the only true religion. I don't support the state making such a proclaimation.
Quote:
You want to dance naked in moonlight around a bonfire..by all means.
Yes, as long as you aren't dancing naked in public. I do support the right of society to set moral standards such as not going naked in public. But if you want to frolic all night with a coven on your privat land you should certainly have that right.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:02 PM |
|
|
I think, you miss the point.
If religion - how ever defined - gives no extra rights, it doesn't matter how you define it. In this case religion in their organized form would be like any other organization, and it would be a matter of course that normal laws supercede, whether something is indeed a religion or a whim.
Only if you grant extra rights, the question of what can be accepted as religion and what not gains importance.
However, if the state is divided from religion, if more than one, in fact ALL religions are allowed, why should the state grant extra rights? It just complicates things unnecessarily.
The state is not supposed to be the vehicle of religious beliefs. It shouldn't inhibit people in their religious freedom, but it has to make sure as well, that people in making use of their religious freedom aren't impeding others in theirs.
Another thing is, obviously, the other side of the coin: if you allow something for religious reasons, why would you forbid it for any other reason?
If, for example, you allow the consummation of otherwise illegal drugs for religious purposes, how can you forbid them otherwise?
If you have indeed different laws, depending on whether it's done as religious freedom or just because you like it, than it's obvious that the solution for everything is to found a new faith - and let the courts determine whether your faith is a religion or not.
That can't be right.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:13 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:16, 19 May 2009.
|
A religion should not grant extra rights, but the following of a religion should not mean the removal of any rights also. So just because they believe something society declairs is 'not normal' doesn't mean that they should be impeded from doing it if it does not hurt anybody else.
Hating to get back to this, but lets talk about the medical situation. (I know I am going to regret this). One decides to not take a treatment because they have read a study that shows the treatment would do more harm then good. One decides not to take a treatment because of a religious belief. Both are misinformed (the study was done by a 'quack' lets say). Why should one be forced to, and the other not, just because one is based on 'faith' in a god, and the other is based on 'faith' of scientific research (even if the research is bad).
Edit : I am not saying the religious people are misinformed in any way. Some are very well informed of the consiquences.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why should one be forced to, and the other not, just because one is based on 'faith' in a god, and the other is based on 'faith' of scientific research (even if the research is bad).
No one should be forced to take any medical treatment whether or not such rejection would be based on religious reasons.
And freedom of religion is a specifically mentioned in the US Constitution because the founding fathers knew that is a right that the state tends to abuse in many places. The state has no right to tell be what religious beliefs I can and can't hold or to interfere with me practicing my religion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A religion should not grant extra rights, but the following of a religion should not mean the removal of any rights also. So just because they believe something society declairs is 'not normal' doesn't mean that they should be impeded from doing it if it does not hurt anybody else.
You are tap dancing again: "not normal" doesn't count. Either something is prohibited or it's not. If you allow something due to religious practise then you have to allow it for everyone. If you forbid something for all then you cannot allow it for religious reasons (only).
Quote:
Hating to get back to this, but lets talk about the medical situation. (I know I am going to regret this). One decides to not take a treatment because they have read a study that shows the treatment would do more harm then good. One decides not to take a treatment because of a religious belief. Both are misinformed (the study was done by a 'quack' lets say). Why should one be forced to, and the other not, just because one is based on 'faith' in a god, and the other is based on 'faith' of scientific research (even if the research is bad).
Edit : I am not saying the religious people are misinformed in any way. Some are very well informed of the consiquences.
That's what I say. Important is only, whether you are allowed to do something or not. For what reason doesn't matter. If a person CAN avoid treatment - because that person is considered adult and mentally not handicapped - the reason is unimportant.
The same is true for parents caring for their children, but the other side is true also: If parents would be guilty of neglect, they are guilty of neglect, whether they claim religious reasons or not
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:34 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:37, 19 May 2009.
|
While I agree with you, I also agree with JJ. There should be no special privilages either. If your religion states "All should be able to do cocaine anytime, anywhere." Then I believe in that case the laws of the land supercede it. Religion should not be a blanket which allows people to get away with things others can not.
People should be free to believe and practice whatever they wish, but there is a responsibility to society also. When a religion allows something that interfears with others rights, I believe that society has every right to step in and say "No, no you don't"
Edit : JJ I don't know how I can be clearer. I am not tap-dancing. It is cut and dry. No special privilages, but no taking away of priviliages that are given to everybody JUST because of somebody practicing their religion.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit : JJ I don't know how I can be clearer. I am not tap-dancing. It is cut and dry. No special privilages, but no taking away of priviliages that are given to everybody JUST because of somebody practicing their religion.
In that case we agree. And with this point made we can safely allow everyone to follow their beliefs and need not care about the question whether it's a religion, a faith, a belief a whim or whatever, since it has no SPECIAL or EXTRA consequences.
You might say it's unimportant.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 12:59 PM |
|
|
Religion is a kind of ideology.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 02:41 PM |
|
|
Religion is, IMO, quite easy to define - it is a systematic and organised belief in something beyond the material world.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 02:57 PM |
|
|
|
Wouldn't that make the organized belief in something abstract as justice, eternal love, complete freedom and so on a religion as well?
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 03:05 PM |
|
|
Religion always takes opinion in afterlife.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wouldn't that make the organized belief in something abstract as justice, eternal love, complete freedom and so on a religion as well?
No, because those have no mystical qualities.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 03:17 PM |
|
|
|
What part of your definition involes mystical qualities? "Beyond the material world" includes the world of ideas: justice is a very immaterial concept.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
|
By "beyond the material world", I meant "souls, spirits, gods, karma, etc."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 03:39 PM |
|
|
What you mean is not what you write.
What is the difference between "karma" and "justice". Qualitatively spoken?
Example: Someone kills another person or two, cruelly, and dies a horrible accidental death.
You may call that karma. You may call that justice. Both is debatable. In fact it's debatable whether both "really" exist. Both are ideas that root in something "beyond the material world" (with justice this is an absolute standard or yardstick at least, otherwise it's called differently).
|
| |
|
|
