There is is difference between liberty and license. What one does for or to one's self is quite a different thing than how one treats others. In a world where some parents would walk over hot coals and broken glass for the sake of their injured or sick offspring, the indifference to the suffering of their children in the name of "faith" is appalling. So too, I think we as a society would reject the defense of child beaters who relied on the Bible as the basis for the abuse--which is why I don't see, for example, "reparation therapy" as anything but abuse since it is not backed by science and is harmful. Crying "religious freedom" simply doesn't give anyone the right to abuse others, not even one's own children.
And I find I have to reject also the idea the discrimination of others is a necessary freedom if simply based on their classification. And I don't think this is at all a rare thing to reject just on the face of it.
Also, what Lemieux says is true. It's an old argument about freedom that does not get any better with age. I it's purest form, it actually sounds asinine these days.
4 comments:
Hi Vixen,
it seems to me that the argument is not about "religion," but about the doctrine of the First Century Gospel Church.
Obviously, there are many medical doctors who are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., etc. All of these denominations believe in prayer and medical science.
First we would have to define what we mean by this word "religion." I sometimes ask people to name the 10 largest religions in the world, and so far no one has been able to answer. (For example, you have to include Sikhism, Shinto, and Jainism.)
In the United States, we now have every religion in the world competing against each other. (You may recall that a Tibetan Buddhist temple in California was charged with illegally funneling money to the Gore presidential campaign.) Today everyone's in on the act.
On the other hand, are we to only ascribe religion to some institutional doctrine created by a religious exponent, or is it more personal?
Clearly if this couple had been Christian Scientists you would know that they were conforming to the beliefs of their church. (Which, believe it or not, have often been effective.) On the other hand, had they been a member of the mainstream denominations their insistence on faith healing alone might just have easily been a violation of the church's doctrine as an expression of it.
--Formerly Amherst
I believe the Biblical statement of weight would be "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God." Most mainstream Christian demoninations look down on miracle-begging because it implies the believer can set the conditions on what God will do.
The very early Christians might not have cared for medical intercession regarding their congregations since medicine at the time of the early church was a crapshoot and they expected the hour of the second coming was near at hand, anyway. After 2,000 years from the 1st cen, though, the sect these folks belonged to might do well to take note that science did get better and their God operates on His own timetable.
As I get older, the sharp edges seem to file off my atheism--it isn't religion I object to, generally speaking. It's when people use religion as a lever on others. Or just holier-than-thou-rolling in general. (I'm not even that fond of evangelical veganism and 12-steppers, once they get started.) Also, when faith is bulwark against facts, I get antsy.
Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift.
obat susah tidur
obat radang tenggorokan
obat kista ovarium
obat kanker darah
Hi Vixen,
you know, I may feel worse than you do about evangelism, because I would extend my dislike of evangelism to both politics and the sale of products.
I also probably have a bigger problem with religion than you do, and I am not an atheist.
I regard most of the arguments between atheism and religion or between science and religion as utterly passe.
Sometime back in the 1940s, 'Religionswissenschaft' became the history of religion mostly associated with Mircea Eliade as its most luminous exponent. Naturally in another field altogether, comparative religion became a very popular specialization. Carl Jung introduced transpersonal psychology, and now other views of the transpersonal factor have also grown up as schools. Joseph Campbell made the world aware of comparative mythology for the first time with Bill Moyers's famous PBS special. Campbell's book Hero with a Thousand Faces became a basis for the movie Star Wars.
The field of comparative religions got its start, believe it or not, with interest stimulated by Madame Blavatsky and the creation of theosophy, but went on to become a scholarly discipline with critical scholarship. Sensitivity groups basically had their origin with George Gurdjieff. And Edmund Husserl started phenomenology.
All these subjects have only come into their own, so to speak, within the last 40 or 50 years, and frankly, they changed the entire perspective relative to the way metaphysical matters can be viewed.
It has been said that we all live roughly 75 years behind the level of knowledge that is on the cutting edge, but that the artist lives perhaps 50 years behind. The old arguments between religion and science really do not begin to address the knowledge and experience that have to be scrutinized to understand the implications of what our newer discoveries are.
Most of the arguments I hear might have been something one would hear in the 1800s.
--Formerly Amherst
Post a Comment