Religion II

[fable]

One of the things that bothers me about American churches (I can't say how this applies to those elsewhere) is their willingness to pursue a political agenda--and more: to regard it as tied to their religious one. I realize my status as a Wiccan almost certainly makes me more sensitive to these matters, but I'm not making it up. For instance, my wife and I attended a Primitive Methodist church in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, when we went to visit her grandfather with her folks a few years back. It was the church my mother-in-law had been taken to as a child by her mother, so there was sentimental value involved.

But during the sermon, the preacher spent his time lashing out at the evils of science--by which (and I'm not joking) he meant evolution! He told parents not to send their children away to take science curricula in colleges, and gave addresses where people could and should write to demand that textbooks which taught evolution, which was of the Devil, should be burnt. He also reminded the congregation who to vote for in local, state, and federal elections.

One of my wife's set of an aunt and uncle is active in the Southern Baptist Church. They seem pretty decent folk (well, he does; she couldn't melt an ice cube if she held it for an hour), but they believe that the political views of those who join their church should be known beforehand, and that this should be taken into account when a person seeks to join the their "worship in Christ." From what I've been able to tell, quite a few of their congregation, and indeed, of the Southern Baptists, appear to feel the same way. And they are a fairly large, and vocal church in the US.

It is also known for a fact that one of Bush's support groups is the so-called Religious Right. I don't care whether it's right, left, center, or anything else on a 3D object--it just seems to me somehow bizarre and frightening that people would worship a god they feel is universal, but attribute to that god a political tier of opinions. Does God oppose contraceptives, mixed race marriages, affirmative action, social welfare, etc? To listen to these churches, I find myself concluding that either the deity they worship does, or there are an awful lot of people taking their god's name in vain. And I'm not honestly sure which it is.

For the record, I'm not a liberal--or a conservative: I take an individual stand on each issue I come across. And I've never approved of political discussions, much of less stances, in any Wiccan coven I've been part of, or started. So this isn't a case of my saying one thing with one side of my mouth, and then speaking out of the other when it comes to my own activities.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I just want to say how impressed I am with everybody's attitude on this thread so far. Even though several of you have listed "bad" experiences, this hasn't led to any "Christian-bashing" or "flaming". Everyone has been very mature and respectful in their Posts and I deeply appreciate it. Keep up the good work.

Epona - I'm also sorry to hear about your experience at the funeral. That type of behavior is exactly what Garnet was referring to in her first Post.

Garnet - I realized quite a while back that our core beliefs are really very similar, despite our "opposing" theologies. That's one reason I enjoy your Posts so much.

Now, just to show you that "bad" experiences aren't limited to non-Christians, here's one that happened to my wife and I (both of us are Born-Again Christians).

When we were first married, we would alternate between our two churches (go to mine one week, hers the next). Her church - where we were married - was your typical "little country church" and the sermons were usually "follow the Bible or you'll go to Hell". My church, on the other hand, was the large "city" church. While our pastor doesn't shy away from hard sermons, his approach was more along the line of "this is HOW to follow the Bible".
One week, we were at my wife's church and the preacher really started getting into the message. He was walking up and down the aisle and "Bible-thumping" for all he was worth. One of the ladies in front was also getting caught up in the sermon and saying "Amen, pastor" or "Preach it, brother", etc. I don't have a problem with that because I've heard some sermons that moved me like that too - but this just wasn't one of them.
Suddenly, the preacher took a new tack and told the entire congregation "You should get EXCITED about God's word like this sister up here....and if you can't, then maybe there's something wrong with you".
My wife and I couldn't believe it! That was the last service we ever went to at her church.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Hey fable - It's good to see you here.

Hmmmm.....I don't really know what to say about your Post, though. Speaking as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you that my political affiliation has NEVER even come up in ANY church I've ever gone to.

I DID take issue with my current church the very first night I went there. It was on Wednesday night (small service) and a deacon's wife got up to inform the crowd about "the evils of AD&D". Since I was an avid gamer at the time, I went up to her after the service to find out just what she really knew about the game....the answer was "Not Much". But I digress.

While a lot of people do seem to be bothered by the Religious Right supporting a particular candidate, I personally don't see a problem with it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to support the candidate that they feel represents their values? Other organizations and corporations do it and there is rarely any mention of it being wrong (except for cases like Enron - but even that won't change the practice). Corporations are expecting political favors down the road and organizations are hoping for favorable legislation.

And, IMHO, "separation of church and state" doesn't apply. The "church" isn't trying to take over the country. There "lobbying" for favorable laws just like any other organizaiton - from the NRA to PETA - and I feel they have the same right to have thier voice heard as everyone else does.

Just my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img]

[Garnet FalconDance]

Oh no, Cerek, I finally found something we disagree on! I *do* have a problem with an overt mixing of church and state in that it applies to actively putting forth a set of values which may not reflect the majority. Evolution vs. creationism comes to mind as a minor example. In the now infamous case in KS, certain schools tried to throw out all scientific teaching of anything resembling evolution because it was 'ungodly'. BIG mistake and they ended up making a laughing-stock of themselves. Some schools still refuse to teach evolution based on religious beliefs, but a public school cannot by law do so.

The religious groups who lobby for new laws involving animal treatment and civil rights are fine since they act for the good of all. But the ones who advocate, for example, returning America to some ideal of a religious utopia under a highly specified set of *their* version of religious doctrine is harmful to the populace at large since it does not reflect the majority--it reflects only those who have the funding to make a public presence known. *I* do not want nor do I wish my children to be forced to act or not act in a certain manner simply because the Powers That Be have decided it goes against what they believe God has said. Imagine if (really silly tho not implausible example ) pagans came into power somehow through lobbying and it was mandated that *everyone* observe the four Quarter festivals and four cross-quarter ones as well as monthly esbats.....

The division between church and state, while the line has become blurred over the years, is a very important distinction and one which should be maintained.

[John D Harris]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
One of the things that really soured me on Christianity *in general* (and I know it is the exception rather than the rule) is the notion that once a person accepts Jesus as Saviour, God forgives all your sins being translated as a blanket forgiveness no matter how you act thereafter. I have known and seen people who go through the motions and after their grand revelation of "finding God" (like *He* was the one lost!) shortly after treating others as or more horridly than ever before, commiting 'sins' and maintaining it was all forgiven due to God's Grace!

Maybe I'm not expressing this very well, and I *do* know this is a minority of self-righteous idiots rather than true Christians, but it still gets me riled.

---

Miss Garnet Ma'am,
Christains are not perfect we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. I agree about the blanket, and disagree too. Very confusing God's forgiveness through Christ is a blanket for those that continue to follow God. For those that through weakness, willful disobediance (sp?), lack of Faith fall away they have turned their back on God. God says He is faithful if we are faithful. A Christain can be saved and fall away or not depending on their heart. The Aposle Paul constainly has to remind the early church in his letters to them: "To walk in a manner worthy of your calling". Or So-in-So has turned away from their first love(Christ). If they were covered under this blanket and could not get out from under it. Paul would of had no reason to remind them, after all they are covered right? If their conversion was not real, then why did Paul say "your calling"? Why didn't he say "There are some there that think they are saved but not really, their conversion wasn't real", after all Paul writing was inspired of God.

[John D Harris]

Miss Garnet Ma'am,
I just read your other post about the minister, I'm sorry that happened to you. That kind of action is NOT taught in the Bible as the actions that a Christain is supposed to ingage in.

[fable]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Hey fable - It's good to see you here.

---

Why thank you, Cerek. I appreciate your welcome, and the atmosphere that's been maintained, here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hmmmm.....I don't really know what to say about your Post, though. Speaking as a Southern Baptist, I can tell you that my political affiliation has NEVER even come up in ANY church I've ever gone to.

You're obviously in a better way to know about the SBs than I am, then. But I know that my wife's aunt and uncle do canvas for church-selected candidates, and they've spoken about "national slates" of candidates in our presence for which the SBC as a group was going to "get out the vote." Perhaps their own views of this are skewed, or maybe I misheard. On the other hand, while your views are those of a member of the SBC, your attitude in dealing with heinous demons like myself are clearly other than standard.

I DID take issue with my current church the very first night I went there. It was on Wednesday night (small service) and a deacon's wife got up to inform the crowd about "the evils of AD&D". Since I was an avid gamer at the time, I went up to her after the service to find out just what she really knew about the game....the answer was "Not Much". But I digress.

Yes, but an interesting digression, nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's a shame how quickly people are willing to condemn that which they do not understand. And that's as true among pagans, I might add, as it is among Christians, Jews, etc, because when you get right down to it, we all suffer from a common affliction, humanity--which, under other circumstances, can be quite a boon.

While a lot of people do seem to be bothered by the Religious Right supporting a particular candidate, I personally don't see a problem with it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to support the candidate that they feel represents their values? Other organizations and corporations do it and there is rarely any mention of it being wrong (except for cases like Enron - but even that won't change the practice). Corporations are expecting political favors down the road and organizations are hoping for favorable legislation.

Like Garnet, I must disagree on this point. I have spoken to too many people who have felt that their God, speaking through their minister/priest/rabbi/whatever definitely wanted them and the congregation to support a particular candidate or vote against another one: never mind the candidate's opinions on a range of issues, or their ability to deal with representing a much broader constituency. The important thing was to unite with discipline and fight for laws that would favor a certain religious viewpoint, and work against other, dissimilar viewpoints.

I'm a strict constitutionalist: even some of the most devout members of the original US Constitutional Congress, like James Madison, worked hard and spoke out against the mix of church and state. Freedom, as he and others saw it, could not stand the restrictions put upon it by such potentially powerful but fringe groups as those representing any religious denomination.

[K T Ong]

Gosh, how many responses this thread has received overnight!

quote:

---

Welcome to the Forum. I don't think I've "met" you before. Glad to see you here.

---

Thank you for the warm welcome, Cerek. [img]smile.gif[/img]

quote:

---

You raised a good question - How do you define Religion?.

fable asked that same question in the original Religion thread. I've BUMPed it up to the first page so you could read some of the responses that were given in that thread. The question and responses start on Page 6.

---

Thanks, I'll go look it up.

Asian schools of thought such as Confucianism actually offer interesting alternative ways of viewing the nature of things and the human condition. Confucian and Taoist philosophy for example envisage the Cosmos as a single supergiant living organism with all things being its constituent parts, humanity included. Because all life thus shares the same fundamental identity, to inflict any form of harm upon another would amount to hurting oneself. This would also imply a view of human nature as being fundamentally inclined towards being morally good, i.e. towards the affirmation rather than the negation of others, by virtue of the intuitive awareness of the identity of one's being with that of others.

The question arises as to how people could then engage in acts harmful to other people. The answer given is ignorance. People who do so -- compulsion from external factors aside -- are not sufficiently aware of their interconnectedness with others and with all of life at large. And one solution is education.

Constraints of time do not permit me to elaborate more, but should it merit everyone's interest and pleasure I can always do so in a future post. And what do you think? Would you call the above... a religion?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:
Oh no, Cerek, I finally found something we disagree on! I *do* have a problem with an overt mixing of church and state in that it applies to actively putting forth a set of values which may not reflect the majority.

....<>...

Imagine if (really silly tho not implausible example ) pagans came into power somehow through lobbying and it was mandated that *everyone* observe the four Quarter festivals and four cross-quarter ones as well as monthly esbats.....

The division between church and state, while the line has become blurred over the years, is a very important distinction and one which should be maintained.

---

Chin up, Garnet, [img]graemlins/funnysad.gif[/img] we're still not all that different. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

I also would not want an "overt" mixing of church and state. Naturally, I appreciate Pres. Bush's religious ethics, since they closely resemble mine (I hope they're for real and not just show), but I would NEVER vote for Pat Robertson.

I didn't state my position very well, and I'm still having a hard time finding the right words. You're fears of the Religious Right wanting to "return us to a religious utopia" are NOT unfounded. I'm sure that is what they would ULTIMATELY like to see. But - as you pointed out with the KS example - if it ISN'T in the interest of the overall majority, it will most likely get shot down.

I just don't feel that simply supporting a candidate or petitioning for certain legislation violates the "separation of church and state" ideal.

However, fable made a very good argument in support of your view, so I'm willing to admit that my personal view may be wrong.

GASP! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] a Southern Baptist that not only tolerates "pagans"...but admits that THEY may be right and he may be WRONG!!! QUICK! Somebody run to the window and make sure the Earth is still rotating on its axis!!! [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

You are correct, fable that I don't conform to the mainstream school of thought for Southern Baptist.

My atheist friend even convinced me that mandatory prayer in school is wrong. (OK...now I KNOW the Earth has left it's orbit)

However, that was only in regards to a prayer said over the P.A. that everyone was forced to listen to, regardless of religious affiliation. I still FIRMLY believe that ALL students should be allowed to have a time specifically set aside for individual prayers.

As I've said before...I love this type of debate. I thoroughly enjoy hearing views that differ from mine (as long as they're done respectfully). Sometimes, you may convince me I'm wrong. Sometimes, maybe I can do the same.


BTW, Yorick, I REALLY liked your example of the "cheating spouse". That was an excellent allegory. I had never even thought of it that way.

K T Ong - I don't know if the Confucian and Taoist philosophies(sp?) would be considered religions, per se, but they certainly provide an interesting Point Of View.
And there is even some common ground between thier view and mine.
"if you harm someone else, you just harm yourself" is pretty close to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] BTW, how do you include "multiple" quotes in your Posts? Half the time, I don't even get to see the other responses when I'm Adding a Reply

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:

BTW, Yorick, I REALLY liked your example of the "cheating spouse". That was an excellent allegory. I had never even thought of it that way.

K T Ong - I don't know if the Confucian and Taoist philosophies(sp?) would be considered religions, per se, but they certainly provide an interesting Point Of View.
And there is even some common ground between thier view and mine.
"if you harm someone else, you just harm yourself" is pretty close to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

---

Why thankyou Cerek.

In answer to your Taoist/Confucionist question, they're considered more worldviews and moral codes than full religions. Together with Buddhism, all three make up the Chinese Religion.

As Taosism identifies and elaborates on 'the Tao' it could be construed as a theology, and thus in some definitions a religion I suppose.

Confucionism works independently from or co-operationally with religious thought. It's more a moral philosophy. The 'Proverbs' of the Orient.