Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2540)	10/25/2000 2:41:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I don't suppose you'd condemn democracy, or perhaps socialism, not sure, no offense, I just don't know what you think, simply because it's a form of mass belief. First; I don't condemn religion. I don't want any of it for myself, and it makes me more than a bit nervous, but I certainly don't contest the right of believers to practice their beliefs. Second, I'm pretty sure I would oppose a movement that tried to approach a belief I hold as if it were a religion. Fo example, I am a great believer in free trade. But if someone declared the virtues of free trade to be absolute, revealed truth, and began preaching it as the sole remedy to all economic ills, applicable without revision to all throughout the world, I would jump ship pretty damned quick. I find religious beliefs more threatening than secular ones, because they deny the possibility of debate. Reasonable people can reasonably discuss the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, democracy and oligarchy, dealing entirely with material and debatable parameters. The moment one introduces faith, one leaves the realm where debate is possible. Either you believe or you don't. The same situation all too often occurs with secular beliefs; it is inexcusable in either. The moment people cease to question, they surrender a fundamental part of their humanity, and become tools for others to manipulate. I don't know if Christ was really so wonderful or not. I have often suspected that the Christ-figure of our mythology has little to do with any historical person, and is simply our own compendium of all that we think best in ourselves, as Satan is our compendium of all that we think worst in ourselves. That is, of course, the perspective of a non-believer. On the subject of not condemning a religion for the deeds of its followers, I have to wonder. We have two religions, Christianity and Islam, which demonstrate particular track records for inspiring violence. Whether or not that violence had anything to do with the actual precepts of those religions seems to me less than material: since these religions do seem easily manipulated to provoke violence, wouldn't we be better off, if we must have religion, with religions such as Buddhism, which seems very difficult to twist into an excuse for violence? If religions that emphasize exclusivity and demand that followers seek to convert others - two qualities shared by Christianity and Islam - are observed to have a tendency to create strife, should we not switch to religions which emphasize tolerance?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2540)	10/25/2000 9:45:48 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Hitler and the Nazis found in medieval Catholic anti-Jewish legislation a model for their own, and they read and reprinted Martin Luther's virulently anti-Semitic writings. It is instructive that the Holocaust was unleashed by the only major country in Europe having approximately equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants. Both traditions were saturated with Jew-hatred.(75) Kristallnacht, in November 1938, the night the synagogues were burnt in Germany, was chosen in honour of the anniversary of Luther's birthday. Hitler claimed, as he chronicled his sixteen steps to Nazi policy, 'I am only doing the work of the Catholic Church.'(76) I think it is necessary to fold this Nazi chapter into the context of history. Jews had been the victims of extermination designs since shortly after the Christian Church was able to rise to the seat of power. The Nazi contribution to this aim was large and efficient...but it was not at all unique. It was not only the Catholic Church that was duplicitous; And one can understand (while yet condemming), the self interest of the Catholics, in carefully remaining on terms with the Nazis. Bolshevism (like certain religions) operated on an exclusivity principle and an ultimate vision. They were the greatest ideological threat to Church influence and power. Indeed they were the executioner, and the hangman of religion. It was very much in the interest of Catholicism (and the other churches) to support the regimen that was the greatest safeguard against Stalinism. Who knows where the fervor of Stalinism would have gotten to without Hitler and World War 11? So many Chosen People. So much war yet to come. BTW, I disagree with your assessment of the character of Jesus. Where He tries to teach, and follows wisdom from His predecessors--it usually comes off good. Where He is simply caught expressing His own feelings...He often comes off rather poorly. Some of His behaviour is childish and immature; Some is vicious and racist. Of course, none of us could afford to have our lives scrutinized under a glass, could we?? "The shocking truth is that the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of hatred and violent persecution, often inspired by Christian theology." cdn-friends-icej.ca