Much though it pains me to agree with the Cantankerous Canadian, I think he's right here, and in his previous post. Most religious practice is social in nature. Followers follow because they think it is the morally good thing to do. Though I reject the supernatural, there's plenty in the Sermon on the Mount to give pause for thought. And in a universe in which a photon can be both particle and wave simultaneously, we should avoid reductive certainty, or at least the vitriolic version of it.
-
Cowboy boots on, petrol can out.
-
I can get behind much of that, in that the good that comes from religious community, is the stuff that could just come from community. Not so much good from the religious supernatural bits.
Religion, which has a framework that includes unsubstantiated made up nonsense, is protected by law, and by representatives in our ruling structures that have guaranteed places in our establishment and law making. Truth, justice, and opportunity not so much. I see that as a significant demerit against it. Of course there would be no theoretical bar on these establishment religious figures from unilaterally and diligently pursuing actual good. They mostly don't. On the other hand, there are some agreeable coffee mornings and cake stalls at village fetes.
Religion has a long and demonic history of stunting progress, and maintaining inequality and the status quo. Not least by excommunicating and the red hot poker up the bum to truth speakers, such that inconvenient truths might be suppressed and progress impeded. There are many examples that the shelter of the church has been used for significant bad, and the establishment and church protects itself rather than the people. But there's knitting of scarves, so the whole shambles deserves a pass.
Community projects to feed the hungry, house the homeless, and lobby for equality of opportunity, could do a lot more with the power, land, and assets, of the church, than the church does.
-
I don't disagree with most of that, but it doesn't really contradict what I said. The point is that most religious practice is mild, inoffensive and has a neutral-positive impact on the wider world. All manner of good is done as a by product of questionable norms (for example poppies), but if the net outcome is beneficial then is the route to achieving it such a terrible thing?
-
You'll not get any disagreement from me on the intersection of legislation and religion.
-
If I was your daughter, I'd be pissed off if you sent me to a church school, even though you don't believe in it, but wouldn't send me on the same school's residential activity holiday, because you didn't believe in it. Chrizzos are gonna Chrizzo.
-
Nor from me. Churches should be scrutinised more closely than they are, and the taxation side of things is absolute nonsense. It enables both charlatans and abuse.
And I am another regular church-goer. Religion and faith are not the same thing, but are easily conflated. And, yes, the good book in Christianity has some adopted stuff, some interpreted stuff, and some politically-motivated stuff. For a lot of people, it provides an incentive to be better than they would otherwise be, and that's an ok result. -
It is, forsure. Personally I'd like to see elected governments, and a commitment to society building, to have a crack at that. Not the institutionalised delusional.
-
No-one is stopping them. And yet.
-
Them? Us.
Because we keep buying the shit that people who don't want us to have that power are peddling. Like religion.
-
OK, citizen grampa.
-
The alternative is that you do not believe that we are participants in a functional democracy, and you are acknowledging your deferral of power to 'them'.
So I was actually trying to be gentle and kind. Even if I do think that you are probably correct.
Religion did that first. Give it your thanks. Sorry, Praise.
..and your tithe.
-
(Thought Russ was going to kick off on how come Wales has its own Church of... but still Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham are in our Football League.)
-
"Elected governments" = them. "Commitment to society building" = us. Religion is (for me) not great, to put it mildly. As I said, it's easy to conflate.
-
He is probably more worried about when they kick us out of their country, and send us back to where we came from, these days. (mostly france)
-
As I don't really give a shit about the Church, they're welcome to organise themselves under whatever leagues they choose without incurring my irritation.
I can assure you that I don't care one bit what they do with you or where they send you.
