Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Just a thought, but maybe as with many other things in this world
    It was create/established pure and good, but through the twisting
    of man mind (again, no gender implied), it has itself been twisted.
    Possibly in an attempt to justify actions that are truely rooted
    in prejudice and hatred of people or maybe even fear. 
    How much easier it might be for those invloved to say I killed 
    him in the name of the almighty, rather then saying I killed him
    because he is different or because I was afraid of him, maybe they
    truely can sleep better at night, assuming they believe there own
    lies.

"Is religion more trouble than it is worth? One only has to look at the world
today to see problems caused by religions."

The problems you mention are not problems specific to religion.  They are
problems of people telling other people how they *must* live.  For some people
this is easy to justify according to a religion because they can always claim to
know some secret revelation from God.  But violence and terrorism exist without
religion, and there are religious people who exist without violence.  The
difference is in the people; the problem is not religion. 

"Would a benevolent god not find some way of dealing with these religious
zealots?"

If God did, free well would not exist.  In allowing people free will to do
what they wish, God allows them to do harm if they wish.

"Or should mankind put its own house in order?  If we do put our own house in
order how do we do it without violence?"

I doubt it can be done without violence.  I believe that it is ethical to defend
one's self from initiated violence with violence.  Those who live by the sword
will die by the sword. 

Jim.

    I wouldent touch religion with a 10 foot pole *faith* is what matters.
    If you don't feel and believe it you're wasting your time and that
    is why there have been wars over religion. I say this only because
    just about every religion teaches that killing a fellow man is wrong.
    Therefore if they had faith there would never have been killing
    in the name of religion.
    Make sense?
                            
    I quit religion many years ago when the pastor of my church called
    me(and anyone else) that attended movies(no refrence to rating or
    content) or danced "sinners bound for hell". I haveing read the
    bible cover-cover failed to recall any part where movies or dancing
    were ever addressed. 
    My feelings were further made certain when a catholic priest told
    me I had to cast aside my baptist upbringing to marry my future
    ex-wife. Geeeez, I always thought they were in the same business
    until then and thats when I realized that faith was what counted
    not some name that can be applied to seperate a group from another.
    
    
    -j

    
    	"Religion" is often used in a motivational context. The belief
    that "those who die in defending the faith are guaranteed a spot
    in heaven" is what *motivates* many believers of the Islamic religion
    to seek out and kill Salmon Rushdie, the author of "Satanic Verses".
    
    	Note that this motivation has nothing to do with "taking an
    objective look" at the book, what it really says, and making your
    own decision based on fact. It's subjective - "everybody else" feels
    that way about it, so, you do too.
    
    	At least part of the motivation to kill Salmon Rushdie comes
    from their leader, a person, the Ayatolla. But he's a variable,
    as he wont last forever. The Religion, on the otherhand, is invariant.
    By believing in a religion, one has an 'infinite source' of motivational
    context on tap, that by definition will last forever. It's easy to motivate
    one's self toward accomplishment if one believes that "they are not of 
    their own, but belong to the Great One", or whatever...
    	
    	Sounds good so far. But as in all specific ways of being, there's
    drawbacks to doing it in "that" way. One that's real clear in choosing
    "religion" is the inevitable comparison of "your way" with "someone 
    else's". Of course, this has been going on since the dawn of the
    religious consciousness in "man". Consider that either you're
    completely certain in your chosen belief system or you're not. If not, 
    you *need* assurance that you've made the right choice and "the other 
    guy is wrong", and you challenge the other belief. If you are, you
    *know* the other guy is wrong and you challenge the other belief, 
    intending on setting "them" straight.
    
    	Interesting how the very same outcome can happen irregardless
    of the level of certainty one has in their chosen belief system.
    Could this be a basic "downfall" of the whole idea of religion?
    This assumes that the majority of "man" has not (yet) attained the
    "valuing differences" consciousness level - which I believe is a
    irrefutably true statement.
    
    	Religions tend to be a binding thing, rather than a freeing
    conception. I realize "ignorance is bliss" so perhaps "rigid structure
    is freedom", but after considering a statement made in another
    conference, I have to believe that "being bound to a constrictive
    set of rules by which you are judged" is a lousy way to live. It
    was said that the vigor with which one defends their chosen belief
    systems is in direct proportion to the rigidity of that system.
    The supposed truth of this statement rings pretty clearly with me
    and says that some religions can actually cause one to become
    "dysfunctional" as, er, hell. Not good.
    
    	It's well known that some religions end up in support of "family
    dysfunctionality". The case which is coming to light recently and
    is quickly becoming "classic" is the case of incestual sexual abuse.
    What is one to think when "Thy Father" has comitted terrible
    tresspasses against your body, yet your religion keeps teaching
    "Honor, Honor, Honor Thy Father". "Reporting him" is certainly not
    "honorable", at one's first consideration of this dilemma. Not good.
    Note that there is no "commandment" which adresses this issue directly,
    in *any* religion, that I know of. One can only adress it though
    interpretation... 
                                                              
    	These discrepancies, or "gaping holes" in the whole of the popular 
    religions, indicate to me that religion itself is a device used
    to control people, and as such, is structured in ways that support
    this end. Let's see, history as we know it first achieved sepreation
    of "church and state" in any case, when, only a couple of hundred
    years ago? You dont spose that the "state" kinda wanted the influence
    of the "church" to effect it's control over it's "subjects" in all
    known history up to our US constitution, do you? 
    
    	I mean, it couldnt be more obvious if you were hit over the head 
    with a 9ft oar...
    
    	Joe Jas      

    Religion is a good thing, in and off itself.  I think it provides
    a kind of combination anchor/moral-code/peace-of-mind-inducing/social
    sort of thing for many people.
    
    Where I feel it goes awry is when you begin talking about one religion
    being intolerant of others.  If a religion is going to espouse that
    they are the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, that's where I think the problem
    starts.
    
    Live and let live, I say......but then again, there haven't been
    many Unitarian wars lately, have there ;)?
    
    -Jody
    

"What is one to think when "Thy Father" has comitted terrible tresspasses
against your body, yet your religion keeps teaching "Honor, Honor, Honor Thy
Father". "Reporting him" is certainly not "honorable", at one's first
consideration of this dilemma."

I would certainly consider encouraging such a person to get help, if necessary
reporting them, if necessary having them arrested, to be an honorable course of
action.  Not only does it show honor to the person themself by correcting them
as they deserve to be corrected, but it shows honor to other people by working
to prevent the person from inflicting harm on others. 

Jim.

    Kierkegaard made the distinction "Christianity and Christendom,"
    the former to speak of religion as experienced by the believer...
    the personal faith...; the latter referred to the Church... the
    institution grown up around religion that seems to be the source
    of so much harm.
    

    Re .6 (Jim)
    
>"What is one to think when "Thy Father" has committed terrible trespasses
>against your body, yet your religion keeps teaching "Honor, Honor, Honor Thy
>Father". "Reporting him" is certainly not "honorable", at one's first
>consideration of this dilemma."

>I would certainly consider encouraging such a person to get help, if necessary
>reporting them, if necessary having them arrested, to be an honorable course of
>action.  Not only does it show honor to the person themself by correcting them
>as they deserve to be corrected, but it shows honor to other people by working
>to prevent the person from inflicting harm on others. 

    While your suggestions are reasonable to an adult, they don't work
    to a child who is being told at every turn "Honor thy father and
    thy mother.", who, in this instance, are not honorable people. 
    Yet, nowhere in the bible is there any kind of suggestions on what
    to do when those whom you are supposed to honor are not honorable.
    The commandment does not say "Honor thy father if he is honorable."
    
    Your suggestions do show honor to other people, but honor of other
    people is not in the commandments.  It only says to honor your parents
    and your god.  It is also in the spirit of the NT, but as Joe said,
    that type of thing is based on interpretation.  
    
    At the same time, notice that Lot *did* commit incest with his
    daughters, yet was considered honorable by god.  And prohibitions
    against incest are hidden away somewhere in either Exodus or
    Deuturonomy, not in the 10 commandments.
    
    Elizabeth

"While your suggestions are reasonable to an adult, they don't work to a child
who is being told at every turn "Honor thy father and thy mother.", who, in this
instance, are not honorable people. Yet, nowhere in the bible is there any kind
of suggestions on what to do when those whom you are supposed to honor are not
honorable. The commandment does not say "Honor thy father if he is honorable.""

The bible does talk about what to do when confronted with an authority who
is telling you to commit a wrong.  This is on a religious level, not on a
familiar level, but it does apply.  I don't know the bible well enough to
state that a more specific statement is not made somewhere in the bible.

Again, I am not saying do not 'honor' someone if they are not 'honorable'. I am
saying that the honorable thing to do is to take care of the problem, one way or
the other. 
    
"At the same time, notice that Lot *did* commit incest with his daughters, yet
was considered honorable by god." 

My understanding was that the daughters got him drunk. :-)  I don't remember
that it was considered "honorable".  Perhaps lengthy discussions of exactly what
the bible says or does not say are not appropriate here. 

Jim.

    RE: .8, I believe that the prohibition against incest is speled
    out in the book of Leviticus (sorry, no chapter/verse handy).
    
    Eric

    Re .9
    
    >The bible does talk about what to do when confronted with an authority
    >who is telling you to commit a wrong.  This is on a religious level,
    >not on a familiar level, but it does apply.  I don't know the bible
    >well enough to state that a more specific statement is not made
    >somewhere in the bible. 

    It is in one of the Gospels, when Jesus is asked about taxes "render
    unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and render the Father that which
    belongs to the Father" (possibly not exact).  That's a long way
    off from Exodus...  It really doesn't look like it applies to the
    dishonorable parent scenario.
    
    There is another story about some king or other (vague) that wanted
    the captive Israelites to bow down to his idol.  They were simply
    told not to obey this ruler.  This really does not apply to the
    child abuse case where the child is physically forced to submit
    to the parents' abuse.
    
    Please remember that the victims in this case may be too young to read
    and interpret the bible on their own.  They are totally dependent on
    what they are told, which is usually the 10 commandments, the "Jesus
    loves little children" stuff, and the "Baby Jesus in the manger" stuff. 
    
    >Again, I am not saying do not 'honor' someone if they are not
    >'honorable'. I am saying that the honorable thing to do is to take care
    >of the problem, one way or the other. 
    
    Great, if they are adults and have a real choice in the matter. But
    when the children are faced with the parent hurting them, then telling
    them either that they (the child) is doing wrong, and/or if they tell
    they will be further harmed, and/or since they are doing wrong, their
    other parent/other people/god won't love them if they tell, at the same
    time their church is telling them "honor thy father and thy mother",
    all the while they are too young to be making any deep philosophical
    decisions on their own, the children are going to be very confused and
    further harmed by this mandate to honor the dishonorable. 
    
    >My understanding was that the daughters got him drunk. :-)  I don't
    >remember that it was considered "honorable".  Perhaps lengthy
    >discussions of exactly what the bible says or does not say are not
    >appropriate here. 
    
    Yeah, yeah, they really wanted it.  Ask any rapist/incest perpetrator.
    Besides, he was too drunk to know what he was doing...  BTW, if
    he was that drunk just *how* did he do anything????
    
    Elizabeth

    re .1 (Eric)
    
    You could well be right - I don't remember which book of the pentateuch
    it was in.
    
    If it's in Leviticus, that's even more obscure, since Leviticus
    primarily was supposed to apply to the Levite priesthood.
    
    Elizabeth

    in re .11
    
    The daughters got him drunk because there were no available
    men and they wanted children. He had refused to 'oblige' them
    so they got him drunk so he wouldn't object.
    
    Bonnie

RE: .11

"It is in one of the Gospels, when Jesus is asked about taxes "render unto
Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and render the Father that which belongs to the
Father" (possibly not exact).  That's a long way off from Exodus...  It really
doesn't look like it applies to the dishonorable parent scenario."

That's not what I was thinking of...  I think there are verses closer to
home in some of the Letters...

"There is another story about some king or other (vague) that wanted the captive
Israelites to bow down to his idol.  They were simply told not to obey this
ruler.  This really does not apply to the child abuse case where the child is
physically forced to submit to the parents' abuse."

It applies as well as any...  on pain of death is about as 'physically forced'
as you can get...

"Please remember that the victims in this case may be too young to read and
interpret the bible on their own. ..."

I'm not suggesting that anything written in the bible or any other place is
going to help a child who cannot read, and is totally dependent on their
parents.  That's what I feel makes this crime so bad is that if the parent goes
bad, there is *nothing* stopping them... (see the next topic or so) 

"Yeah, yeah, they really wanted it.  Ask any rapist/incest perpetrator."

If you wish to tie a biblical incident to a rationalization for rape, I
certainly can't stop you...  I wasn't there, and I don't know what it was
like, and neither do you...  I'm just reporting what is written...  

There are a lot of unsavory events in the bible, but that does not mean that all
of them are honorable.  Some are explictly descriptions of wrong doings. 
Others would not be appropriate today...
     
Jim.

    All religions exist only because of mankind's own fears and
    superstitions.  Man was born without fear, without religion.  It
    was taught to him after birth.
    
    Dwight

Someone who can't make up his mind whether he is an Agnostic or an
Atheist, has told me that Religion is a tool for the cynic, an
excuse for the corrupt, a crutch for the weak and a way of life for
the sucker. But, he is not sure. 

More atrocities have been committed in the name of God, than for any
other reason through history. However, that was always the excuse,
not the factual, underlying cause. 

For instance (.0 take notice), the war in the middle east has
nothing to do with religion. Moslems are fighting Jews over land,
not God. Likewise, look at the conflict in Ireland: it's over
Economics, not Theology. 

-- Ron

    Excuse me?  I didn't *think* I'd added the CHRISTIAN notesfile
    to my notebook.  Nor the RELIGION one, if there is such a file.
    Are we going to make HR into another format for arguing religion?
    
    --Louise

    It seems like a valid topic when it relates to "Human_relations".
    If the topic takes a theologic rathole, only then would there be
    a problem, but as a general subject, sounds ok to me.
    
    Eric (and yes, there is a Religion notesfile, and a few other specific
          ones besides Christian).

    Re .7
    
    I like the idea of the "church" being the problem and not the religion.
    After all it is just another tool for man to wield power over others
    through.
    
    Re .16
    
    Currently land is the visible issue between the moslem and jew.
    Unfortunately these peaople are of the same ethnic origin having
    eminated from the same region back in the days of pre history.
    Therefore they have the same rights to the land. Please let us not
    discuss that here though. Worth a seperate note? 
    
    The real problem, I feel, is caused by the incompatibility in religious
    beliefs. Through history there are examples of jews in moslem countries
    being slaughtered (executed) by moslems becaise they were jews and
    for no other reason.
                
    Re .17
    
    I feel that religion, in the context of this note, is a valid topic
    for discussion. It affects the way groups of people or individuals 
    relate to each other.
    
    In particular how the non moslem residents of the U.K. relate to
    the immigrant moslem community over the Salmon Rushdi affair. Which
    I feel is about as important as pissing in the wind. Am I allowed
    to say that here?
    
    There are good things to have come out of religion. These are the
    fundementals of the laws by which the majority of us conduct our
    lives today. The trouble is there are to many of us that break these
    laws in the name of our belief.
    
    Jon
    
    The subject of incest and what the bible says or does not say however
    is not relevant to the discussion. I would like to say that it is
    a very important topic and worth a seperate note.
    
     

RE: .19


>    Currently land is the visible issue between the moslem and jew.
>    Unfortunately these peaople are of the same ethnic origin having
>    eminated from the same region back in the days of pre history.
>    Therefore they have the same rights to the land.

This is a gross oversimplification.

Who inhabited **the region** in the past is immaterial. The exact
tract of land under discussion ("The land of Israel" as it looked on
the biblical Map) has changed hands many times in the past 2000
years. The problems of historical (NOT pre historic) rights is
extremely complex. 

As far as I know, you are the first scholar to maintain that 'both
sides have the same rights to the land' (I have heard arguments for
either side, but not for both). I wonder if you have mastered the
data (such as the cultures of the people in question, their
respective languages, their history, etc., etc..) required to arrive
at such a far reaching conclusion. 


>   The real problem, I feel, is caused by the incompatibility in
>   religious beliefs.

Unlike other 'religious' wars, even the adversaries in this conflict 
do not claim it's religion based.

A confusing factor could be the common misunderstanding of the
nature of Judaism. Jews are a people (race, if you will), which 
also share a religion. The Mid East conflict is a NATIONAL, not a
religious conflict (albeit, it does have secondary, religious
overtones). 


>    Through history there are examples of jews in moslem countries 
>    being slaughtered (executed) by moslems becaise they were jews and
>    for no other reason.

True. A lot of that is fairly recent, fired by the conflict. One can
point at many reasons and circumstances that triggered this killing
and robbing of Jews, most of which are not religious in nature, but
this is outside the scope of this note (or, indeed, this notefile). 

If you are interested, there are numerous discussions on this
subject in the BAGELS notefile. 

-- Ron