The Church is not the Enemy

Mad_Hatter

Nominee Member
Oct 14, 2005
70
0
6
Shakedown Street
www.myspace.com
Totally fair, Cosmo. I can sympathize.
I definitely do not sympathize with extremists who try to push their beliefs on everyone else.

However, sometimes when someone even so much as mentions "I am religious... I am a Christian" this is seen by hard-core athiests as an attempt to convert; which honestly, is often not the case.

Personally, I love to learn about many other beliefs. I find it enriching as well as rewarding.
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
At last, something intelligent said about the topic :)[/quote]

That's a little unfair, Hatter. In my experience, I've found the majority if CC members are extremely respectful of the rights of others to hold whatever opinion they choose, so long as they're not intent on forcing those opinions on others. In my view, religion is a private matter, about introspection and how you live your own life. If you bring your views onto a public forum, they will be challenged.

Of course there's plenty of ranting here, but you'll also find plenty of informed and intelligent debate on religious issues, especially in some of the older threads. The reason for some of the flippancy you've complained about is that we often have posters who come here and tell us we're going to hell, or that the perfectly ordinary lives we lead are in some way sinful. Worst of all, are those who would seek to impose these views, through changes in the law, in order to deny people basic rights, because of their own ill conceived sense of morality and spiritual superiority. some find that offensive: I know I do.

This has been ongoing for some time - people here have defended their positions in a considered way, but many merely come here to preach and condemn, not to listen and debate. It doesn't surprise me that folk are tired of repeating themselves, and can no longer be bothered to put up with this and, instead, just say: "Feck you".

As I say, there's actually been plenty of intelligent, well-reasoned things said on religious topics, some of them ad nauseum, you just have to know where to look. I'll help you with some links for them, if you're interested. But please, don't be so quick to judge.


Welcome to the board, btw :wink:


Twila said:
Thank you Cosmo. I agree with you and Pea about the topic of religion. That's how I knew it was pms that was causing my reaction.

8O Oh No, Twinks - you're not still getting those annoying private messages, are you? You should have them traced.
 

Mad_Hatter

Nominee Member
Oct 14, 2005
70
0
6
Shakedown Street
www.myspace.com
Henry,

Allright, that is fair. I'm only basing my judgements on what I've seen recently. And in all honesty, I find antagonism and prejudice towards religion just as hurtful and offensive as stupid "you're going to hell" quips. Neither are right, and I think both should be kept to a minimum. That being said, I am very interested in intelligent and respectful debate about religion and religious issues.

Peace, Love and Understanding
Shanna

PS: Thanks for the welcome :D
PPS: For all you clueless males PMS doesn't mean private messages, it means pre-menstrual syndrome. lol :p
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: The Church is not the

Oh Henry knows what PMS stands for. He's just being......humourous.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: The Church is not the

no, not really. I just can't spell the word facitious.....

see?!? I can't spell it. Tried a better word.
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
but I wasn't being facetious ... I was being humorous. Which I see you couldn't spell, either. :p


Sorry. That probably would seem facetious. 8O
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: The Church is not the

FACETIOUS (Yes I looked it up)
Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.
adj : cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek advice" [syn: bantering, tongue-in-cheek]
 
Most of us on the left have grown up and are past the believing in fairytales stage, in our lives.

Religion is behind every major conflict in the world - past, present and future.

This is the statement of a typical North American who is America-centric. The person who made this claim, I would assume, knows very little about European, Asian, African, or South American history. I can think of a number of wars that had nothing to do with religion. The two most bloody wars in history (WWI and WWII) had nothing to do with religion. They had to do with European colonialism. Why did much of the world go to war? In my opinion, because Europeans were imposing their colonialism on places like Africa, the East Indies and Oceania, and various places in the Middle East and China.

World War II, alone, is estimated to have killed directly or indirectly about 50-60 million people (or 3 per cent of the world's population). It is estimated to have cost more money and resources than all other wars in history combined (approx. $1 trillion [$10.5 trillion in 2005 terms]). Your argument, my friend, falls apart and I only have to use one example.

I find the statement that I quoted above extremely offensive and an attack on the multicultural agenda of our nation. If we are multi-cultural then we need to be celebrating our diversity and our cultures-not advancing the non-religious agenda over the religious agenda. The non-religion expression is an expression as much as a religious expression. The religious expression integrates doctrines of religion, the non-religious expression does not. The theist expresses the existence of God, the atheist does not. There are many in-betweens, variations, and even additions to what I am saying here. But we don't celebrate diversity in this country. What we do is we create an enmity between Christians and those who hate Christianity. We create a hatred between Christians and Muslims. It seems that the Christians are losing right now. I don't know why anybody is losing though if this is an OFFICIALLY multi-cultural country. Everybody should be winning!!!

If this is a multi-cultural country I would expect religion and faith to be a large part of that (and this is not limited to one religion-it is only limited by the diversity of cultural backgrounds that people come from). I would expect religion and faith to be a large part of that because religion, to some extent (it varies from culture to culture), is an expression of culture and, in some cases, defines a culture. Because of our official multi-cultural stance in this country, I would expect there to be more interaction within religions, more interaction and dialogue between different religions and expressions for and against religion, and government involvement in those conversations. I wouldn't expect government suppression of religion or government preference for the non-religious and atheistic ideologies over expressions of faith. I would expect that the government would encourage each group to grow and develop more harmonious relationships with each other.

We have so much fighting in this country over religion because we truly are close-minded people who don't really care about each other. This extends to skin colour. I noted that article in the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago where only a third of visible minority Canadians "feel Canadian". That means we aren't comfortable talking about our differences. What we care about is trying to manipulate people to our own agendas; most of us don't want to take time to listen to others when we don't agree with others.

Personally, I love to listen to people tell me their story or their take on religion, politics, race relations and ethnicity, struggle (all that nitty-gritty stuff that helps us realise our humanity and how hungry we are to discover our own humanity)-whether a person of faith or not. I love these stories because it is here that we truly tread on shaky ground. This is ground that we don't talk about because people get offended easily. I think we have to talk about it though in order to fully realise the humanity of our fellow Canadians.

What are your thoughts on this?

I just want to identify that my intention is to speak constructively. Make sure you identify that you are uncomfortable with my words if, in fact, you are-I would love to have a conversation about those words you find offensive-if you do. What I am trying to do is fully understand where I am coming from-I cannot do that, however, without feedback. I would be pleased to hear your response.

Peace,

Adam
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
kilnerad,

interesting post. i don't find anything of what you said offensive. I would like to see a canada that is more tolorant and inclusive of all the nations that stand under the flag. I think that religion itself belongs in the home. It is a personal thing and has no place in public life. I agree with sharing each other's cultures so we can better understand others and outselves, but anything involving governance needs to be kept clean of religion. Even including the term "God" in our charters is divisive as it implies the abrahamic god has more validity than any other religious or non-religious belief.

cheers.
 
Interesting paradox...we say religion should be confined to the home, yet we show it on TV and on the big screen.

My point is that if we say that religion needs to be private, then we are assuring ourselves that the ideology of non-religion and atheism is a religious expression that is put ahead of everyone else's beliefs-which means that freedom of religion does not mean that each religion is seen as valid by the state. It means that the state actually prefers the religious ideology of non-religion. In my opinion that discriminates against all other religion.

Peace,

Adam
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: The Church is not the

Not promoting religion is not the same as promoting non-religion though, kilnerad. I'm an atheist, but don't expect...or even want...my government to promote atheism. The question of there being a god or not should never even come up.
 

JomZ

Electoral Member
Aug 18, 2005
273
0
16
Reentering the Fray at CC.net
There is a strong difference between Secularism and Atheism/Non-Religion.

The fact is that our government should be governed by the people, and serve the to maintain the general order of the population.

Religion of any kind is and should be kept as seperate as possible, and an agnostic approach should be taken to government. That means we do not fully know the existence or non-existence of God or Deity. Our government should place emphasis on making policy based on the knowledge that we know and what is applicable to the world.
 
There is a strong difference between Secularism and Atheism/Non-Religion.

The word secular comes from the Latin word secularis which means "worldly". Christians, Jews, and Muslims are called by God, YHWH, and Allah to guard against too much worldliness. In essence, a secular state does not take into account those expressions that are not called to worldliness. Thus, I am saying that Secularism is not adequate for an officially multi-cultural society.

The word atheism comes from the Greek word atheos which means "to deny the gods". If the state denies the existence of God or the gods then the state automatically separates itself from the portion of the population that does believe in God.

The word religion comes from the Latin for "reverence for the gods" and so non-religion is the opposite "irreverence for the gods". Namely, a lack of respect for the gods.

So, your quote is noted-there is a difference between each of these ideas. The point I am making is that government needs to give respect to every religion rather than no religion, because not giving respect to any religion exerts one religious ideology over all others-which is the antithesis of multi-culturalism. These religious communities do not require government approval, because many of them have existed for millenia without government approval-some even under massive persecution from the government. But in an officially multi-cultural society, to choose secularism/atheism/non-religion over the other ideals of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Bahai, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. is a ground that I believe is dangerous for our multi-culturalism. I would say if any group be trampled on-may it be the group of the least-which just happens to be the non-religious-although, I do not, for one second, believe that any person or group should be allowed to feel marginalised.

Peace to the world,

Adam
 

pinocchio73

New Member
Dec 30, 2006
1
0
1
give me a break

Hank C Cheyenne vbmenu_register("postmenu_606438", true);

wrote:

RE: The Church is not the Enemy
....seems the radical left is becoming more and more vile...they will attack anyone who does not feel the same way that they do and have no respect...



I find it really funny when conservative Christians (who are the privledged in society) try to tell the rest of the world they are under attack.

Let's make something perfectly clear. It is not good enough for Christians to want the freedom to believe what they want to believe, they want to force that belief on everyone else. If you don't think, for example, that two men should have the right to marry, then teach that to your children rather than try to force others to follow your belief system, especially in the example where gay couples have been together for 25 and 30 years.

So i find it really funny that Hank would accuse the left of being vile mean while it is the right that is trying to stop others based on their own right winged narrow minded beliefs. It's like blaming the blacks in the 60's for fighting against racism and trying to convince the rest of the world that white bigots were unfairly being attacked.

Let's get the facts straight here....