Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Absolutely. That was precisely what I suggested to my English teacher, who nearly broke down in tears.

I see no reason whatsoever for young students to be reading inciteful hatred in a tolerant democratic state such as the US. Might as well force them to read Mein Kampf.

Now, I believe in the value of free speech, so whoever has the desire to read that 16th century tabloid trash is free and welcome to do it, I would be the last to object. But forcing this trash as mandatory curriculum on our youth is absolutely reprehensible.

er ... I somehow have a tough time understanding how Mein Kampf = Shakespeare’s writings? Besides Anti Semitism won't go away even if these writings are banned. The best approach is to teach them, so that people understand why hatred and anti-Semitism should be stopped.

You sound just like the people who claim that gays recruit the youth in the schools!!!

Duchifas wrote: Perhaps, I wasn't looking for that when I read his crap, but whatever the reason, the sooner that Christians get on board the better.

Well, this is amusing. I love it when the caring Christians come to save the children!!! :lol:

Duchifas wrote: The only thing that would satisfy me would be to make sure students spend an extra hour on math or science, rather than polluting their minds with Shakespearean jew-hatred. Looking at the sorry state of math and science in our schools, I think that approach would be best.

Shakespearean jew-hatred???!!! :lol: I've read many of the Shakespeare’s works and the jew-hatred is there to be sure, but to blame Shakespeare's works for the spread of anti-Semitism is just amusing to say the least. What else do you want to ban? Don't be shy. Maybe the science that doesn't agree with the Bible should be banned as well because it is teaching kids to hate God! :shock:

[Geneviève]

I have a question.
I admit to being more or less completely ignorant of Judaism, since I grew up Catholic in Texas and had virtually no exposure to the Jewish religion or culture.
My question is, what is the significance of leaving out the 'o' in "God"?
I've seen Jewish people on this forum and elsewhere write the word "G_d".
It has been vaguely explained to me that some Jewish people believe that writing the name of God is blasphemy, but I really don't understand it... "God" isn't his actual name, is it?
I wonder if someone here could explain this custom in more depth.
I've seen Jewish people chastised by Christians on internet forums for writing God's name this way (including on this forum, as recently as yesterday).
Perhaps if someone explained the significance behind this practice, it would help them understand better and not get offended.
As for me, I'm an atheist, and just curious. :wink:

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Geneviève wrote: I have a question.
I admit to being more or less completely ignorant of Judaism, since I grew up Catholic in Texas and had virtually no exposure to the Jewish religion or culture.
My question is, what is the significance of leaving out the 'o' in "God"?
I've seen Jewish people on this forum and elsewhere write the word "G_d".
It has been vaguely explained to me that some Jewish people believe that writing the name of God is blasphemy, but I really don't understand it... "God" isn't his actual name, is it?
I wonder if someone here could explain this custom in more depth.
I've seen Jewish people chastised by Christians on internet forums for writing God's name this way (including on this forum, as recently as yesterday).
Perhaps if someone explained the significance behind this practice, it would help them understand better and not get offended.
As for me, I'm an atheist, and just curious. :wink:

Here are the reasons for it:

- It makes the words G-d unpronounceable. This is because of this statement:

Exodus 20:7: Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

- Another reason is as far as I know, no one knows how to pronounce YHWH, so they assume they should not be able to pronounce God!

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: Absolutely. That was precisely what I suggested to my English teacher, who nearly broke down in tears.

I see no reason whatsoever for young students to be reading inciteful hatred in a tolerant democratic state such as the US. Might as well force them to read Mein Kampf.

Now, I believe in the value of free speech, so whoever has the desire to read that 16th century tabloid trash is free and welcome to do it, I would be the last to object. But forcing this trash as mandatory curriculum on our youth is absolutely reprehensible.

er ... I somehow have a tough time understanding how Mein Kampf = Shakespeare’s writings? Besides Anti Semitism won't go away even if these writings are banned. The best approach is to teach them, so that people understand why hatred and anti-Semitism should be stopped.

You sound just like the people who claim that gays recruit the youth in the schools!!!

The best approach to make the ideas of Mein Kampf and Merchant of Venice to go away is to teach them in school to our kids?

Oh, that's a good one.

Quote: Duchifas wrote: The only thing that would satisfy me would be to make sure students spend an extra hour on math or science, rather than polluting their minds with Shakespearean jew-hatred. Looking at the sorry state of math and science in our schools, I think that approach would be best.

Shakespearean jew-hatred???!!! :lol: I've read many of the Shakespeare’s works and the jew-hatred is there to be sure, but to blame Shakespeare's works for the spread of anti-Semitism is just amusing to say the least. What else do you want to ban? Don't be shy. Maybe the science that doesn't agree with the Bible should be banned as well because it is teaching kids to hate God! :shock:

Now, now, let's not mock a very reasonable argument here, shall we? There is nothing amusing about the kids being given the impression that they are reading one of the greatest writers of all times, and then shoving the image of a flesh-hunting Jews down their impressionable young psyche. Not amusing in the least.

You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: The best approach to make the ideas of Mein Kampf and Merchant of Venice to go away is to teach them in school to our kids?

Oh, that's a good one.

Well, you are twisting my words. I meant that the best approach is that while teaching the kids about these works, the teachers should discuss why things such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are dangerous and counter productive. This logical approach will ensure that kids understand why they should not be racist logically.

Duchifas wrote: Now, now, let's not mock a very reasonable argument here, shall we? There is nothing amusing about the kids being given the impression that they are reading one of the greatest writers of all times, and then shoving the image of a flesh-hunting Jews down their impressionable young psyche. Not amusing in the least.

Well, now you are assuming that kids are stupid. Someone doesn't become racist by reading something from Shakespeare!

Duchifas wrote: You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.

Well, that's why we need a private school system. That way I can make sure that my kid [if I ever have one] is exposed to the religious BS as much as possible, so that he/she can see the sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and contradictory dogma that is in the Torah/Bible/Quran with his/her own eyes and understand the dangers of organized religion. :wink: Though it has to be said that I'm sure the religious people will set up “hate schools” where they teach kids not to tolerate the heathens. That’s fine by me!!!

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: The best approach to make the ideas of Mein Kampf and Merchant of Venice to go away is to teach them in school to our kids?

Oh, that's a good one.

Well, you are twisting my words. I meant that the best approach is that while teaching the kids about these works, the teachers should discuss why things such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are dangerous and counter productive. This logical approach will ensure that kids understand why they should not be racist logically.

So you are saying that it is a better use of kids' time to give them an explanation of racism and teach them Merchant of Venice or Mein Kempf, than teaching them something that is not a blatant incitement to ethnic hatred?

What happened, the English language ran out of good literature that does not involve racism?


Quote: Duchifas wrote: Now, now, let's not mock a very reasonable argument here, shall we? There is nothing amusing about the kids being given the impression that they are reading one of the greatest writers of all times, and then shoving the image of a flesh-hunting Jews down their impressionable young psyche. Not amusing in the least.

Well, now you are assuming that kids are stupid. Someone doesn't become racist by reading something from Shakespeare!

Oh sure, Shakespearean incitement works best when combined with other trash. So according to your logic, because any one work by itself is unlikely to make a racist out of anyone, let's force our kids to read all kinds of trash.

Duchifas wrote: You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.

Well, that's why we need a private school system. That way I can make sure that my kid [if I ever have one] is exposed to the religious BS as much as possible, so that he/she can see the sexist, racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and contradictory dogma that is in the Torah/Bible/Quran with his/her own eyes and understand the dangers of organized religion. :wink:[/quote]

Absolutely. If you want to pay for that kind of private school, and/or teach Shakespeare in it, I have no problem at all.

My problem is that kids are forced to read hateful literature, courtesy of MY tax money. That's the problem.

Quote: Though it has to be said that I'm sure the religious people will set up “hate schools” where they teach kids not to tolerate the heathens. That’s fine by me!!!

Freedom is good.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: So you are saying that it is a better use of kids' time to give them an explanation of racism and teach them Merchant of Venice or Mein Kempf, than teaching them something that is not a blatant incitement to ethnic hatred?

What happened, the English language ran out of good literature that does not involve racism?

No, I am saying by educating kids why racism is counter productive through logical discussions, kids will most likely become immune to becoming racist. The difference between my method and your method is that you want to get rid of all the hate literature and you think that will make the hate go away. I want to use logical discussion to ensure that each kid realizes that racism/hate is counter productive.

You seem to think that I endorse the racist stuff!

Duchifas wrote: Oh sure, Shakespearean incitement works best when combined with other trash. So according to your logic, because any one work by itself is unlikely to make a racist out of anyone, let's force our kids to read all kinds of trash.

No one is forcing anyone! I agreed with you that schools should be privatized, but you seem to be ignoring my points. As I pointed out, when reading these racist material, the teacher needs to let the kids conclude that racism is a negative thing through logical discussion! Again, you seem to think that by not teaching these material, racism will go away!

Duchifas wrote: You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.

Polluting the minds of our children? :lol: Well, whatever you say ... but you should also stop polluting the minds of the children with the YHVA and altering the scientific theories to conform your religious dogma.

Duchifas wrote: Absolutely. If you want to pay for that kind of private school, and/or teach Shakespeare in it, I have no problem at all. My problem is that kids are forced to read hateful literature, courtesy of MY tax money. That's the problem.

Agreed! That way I can make sure my kid [if I ever have one] will be raised in a tolerant surrounding rather than with the religious BS that is being shoved down everyone's throats.

Duchifas wrote: Freedom is good.

Yes, freedom is good. Too bad it's being curtailed in the name of "struggle against extremism".

[Geneviève]

Quote: There is nothing amusing about the kids being given the impression that they are reading one of the greatest writers of all times, and then shoving the image of a flesh-hunting Jews down their impressionable young psyche. Not amusing in the least.

You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.


I agree.
I dislike Shakespeare for a great many reasons; his blatant antisemitism is one.

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: So you are saying that it is a better use of kids' time to give them an explanation of racism and teach them Merchant of Venice or Mein Kempf, than teaching them something that is not a blatant incitement to ethnic hatred?

What happened, the English language ran out of good literature that does not involve racism?

No, I am saying by educating kids why racism is counter productive through logical discussions, kids will most likely become immune to becoming racist. The difference between my method and your method is that you want to get rid of all the hate literature and you think that will make the hate go away. I want to use logical discussion to ensure that each kid realizes that racism/hate is counter productive.

You seem to think that I endorse the racist stuff!

Ok, so for your purposes, Shakespeare should be used in History/Social Sciences class as an example of anti-semitic inciteful hate literature.

Hey, I have no problem with that. I agree, that would be a good way to teach kids about the evils of racism.

But if you want to teach kids literature, why not pick something that is less hateful?

Quote: Duchifas wrote: Oh sure, Shakespearean incitement works best when combined with other trash. So according to your logic, because any one work by itself is unlikely to make a racist out of anyone, let's force our kids to read all kinds of trash.

No one is forcing anyone! I agreed with you that schools should be privatized, but you seem to be ignoring my points. As I pointed out, when reading these racist material, the teacher needs to let the kids conclude that racism is a negative thing through logical discussion! Again, you seem to think that by not teaching these material, racism will go away!

First of all, what you seem to be advocating is to teach literature through Shakespeare and as a sidenote to point out to kids about the racism involved.

I think that's just a waste of everyone's time. Why not teach kids literature by reading normal literature, and teach the evils of racism in another class which is more relevant -- say, History.

Quote: Duchifas wrote: You want to read that hateful crap on your own time? Fine. You want your kid to read it? Fine, on his own time. But teaching this in schools is nothing short of polluting the minds of our children with ethnic hatred....paid for with yours and mine tax dollars.

Polluting the minds of our children? :lol: Well, whatever you say ... but you should also stop polluting the minds of the children with the YHVA and altering the scientific theories to conform your religious dogma.

Ok, so how about you stop attributting to me stuff I never said, ok? I would never endorse polluting the minds of the general population with Judaism. I have absolutely no desire to do that, believe me. :lol:

Quote: Duchifas wrote: Absolutely. If you want to pay for that kind of private school, and/or teach Shakespeare in it, I have no problem at all. My problem is that kids are forced to read hateful literature, courtesy of MY tax money. That's the problem.

Agreed! That way I can make sure my kid [if I ever have one] will be raised in a tolerant surrounding rather than with the religious BS that is being shoved down everyone's throats.

First of all, of course you will. Kids are great. Why do you doubt having them?

Second of all, what's the beef with religion? Who is shoving what down your throat?


Quote: Duchifas wrote: Freedom is good.

Yes, freedom is good. Too bad it's being curtailed in the name of "struggle against extremism".

Absolutely agree, although we probably mean different things by subscribing to such a statement. :)

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Ok, so for your purposes, Shakespeare should be used in History/Social Sciences class as an example of anti-semitic inciteful hate literature.

Hey, I have no problem with that. I agree, that would be a good way to teach kids about the evils of racism.

But if you want to teach kids literature, why not pick something that is less hateful?

Well, if the problem is the degree of hate, then I think something less hateful might be more appropriate. Though obviously less hateful is very subjective.

Duchifas wrote: First of all, what you seem to be advocating is to teach literature through Shakespeare and as a sidenote to point out to kids about the racism involved.

I think that's just a waste of everyone's time. Why not teach kids literature by reading normal literature, and teach the evils of racism in another class which is more relevant -- say, History.

Well, I have no idea which method is more useful. I support the method that makes racism less likely. If that means kids are better off being taught about the evils of racism in the history class, then I support that.

Duchifas wrote: Ok, so how about you stop attributting to me stuff I never said, ok? I would never endorse polluting the minds of the general population with Judaism. I have absolutely no desire to do that, believe me. :lol:

I didn't mean Judaism per se in my earlier post. I was referring more to the polluting of kids’ minds by the organized religions.

Duchifas wrote: First of all, of course you will. Kids are great. Why do you doubt having them?

Having a child needs preparation, commitment, and sacrifice. I can’t see myself being able to offer those three, so I’d rather not screw around with another human being’s life.

Duchifas wrote: Second of all, what's the beef with religion? Who is shoving what down your throat?

It's simple really: religion = lies, hypocrisy, discrimination, sexism, racism, homophobia, dogma, etc. Though that might be generalizing it a bit.

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: Ok, so for your purposes, Shakespeare should be used in History/Social Sciences class as an example of anti-semitic inciteful hate literature.

Hey, I have no problem with that. I agree, that would be a good way to teach kids about the evils of racism.

But if you want to teach kids literature, why not pick something that is less hateful?

Well, if the problem is the degree of hate, then I think something less hateful might be more appropriate. Though obviously less hateful is very subjective.

See how easy it was to come to an agreement?

I think we can objectively agree that portraying the stereotype of a Jew as seeking flesh, etc -- is objectively hateful.

Quote:
Duchifas wrote: First of all, what you seem to be advocating is to teach literature through Shakespeare and as a sidenote to point out to kids about the racism involved.

I think that's just a waste of everyone's time. Why not teach kids literature by reading normal literature, and teach the evils of racism in another class which is more relevant -- say, History.

Well, I have no idea which method is more useful. I support the method that makes racism less likely. If that means kids are better off being taught about the evils of racism in the history class, then I support that.

Yup.

Quote: Duchifas wrote: Ok, so how about you stop attributting to me stuff I never said, ok? I would never endorse polluting the minds of the general population with Judaism. I have absolutely no desire to do that, believe me. :lol:

I didn't mean Judaism per se in my earlier post. I was referring more to the polluting of kids’ minds by the organized religions.

I don't know what that means, exactly -- organized religions. What is an organized religion and what is a disorganized one? What sets them apart? Can you give me an example of a disorganized religion just so that I know we are on the same page? Or an un-organized, if you wish.

Quote: Duchifas wrote: First of all, of course you will. Kids are great. Why do you doubt having them?

Having a child needs preparation, commitment, and sacrifice. I can’t see myself being able to offer those three, so I’d rather not screw around with another human being’s life.

Yes, it requires all three of those. Why can't you offer those exactly? I mean, assuming you are a normal human being, which you certain appear to be, historical records show it is possible. :)

Quote:
Duchifas wrote: Second of all, what's the beef with religion? Who is shoving what down your throat?

It's simple really: religion = lies, hypocrisy, discrimination, sexism, racism, homophobia, dogma, etc. Though that might be generalizing it a bit.

Yes there is a lot of that in a lot of religions. Do you believe that G-d exists? Religions or not\.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: See how easy it was to come to an agreement?

yup! :)

Duchifas wrote: I think we can objectively agree that portraying the stereotype of a Jew as seeking flesh, etc -- is objectively hateful.

I agree that it is hateful, but I cannot “objectivity” say it is hateful. From my point of view, it’s clearly hateful. That makes it subjective rather than objective. Doesn’t it? :?

Duchifas wrote: I don't know what that means, exactly -- organized religions. What is an organized religion and what is a disorganized one? What sets them apart? Can you give me an example of a disorganized religion just so that I know we are on the same page? Or an un-organized, if you wish.

Organized religion could be defined as a coercive belief system that seeks to make people fear God by threatening punishments. Organized religions could be recognized by their religious leaders like rabbis, priests, etc. They usually have a holy book, which they claim is from God, YHVA, Allah, etc.

Duchifas wrote: Yes, it requires all three of those. Why can't you offer those exactly? I mean, assuming you are a normal human being, which you certain appear to be, historical records show it is possible. :)

Well, it depends on what you consider a "normal human being"? :lol:

Duchifas wrote: Yes there is a lot of that in a lot of religions. Do you believe that G-d exists? Religions or not\.

I don't know if God exists or not, but the people who believe in the organized religions have attempted to brainwash me extensively with the help of my parents during my younger years. :shock:

[Duchifas]

Quote: Organized religion could be defined as a coercive belief system that seeks to make people fear God by threatening punishments. Organized religions could be recognized by their religious leaders like rabbis, priests, etc. They usually have a holy book, which they claim is from God, YHVA, Allah, etc.

Ok, so just that I have a clearer picture, do you have an example or two of a un/dis-organized religion for me? Just so that I can compare the two. Because from what you say, I really can't think of one -- leaving me with no point of reference. When you do give me an example, what are your feelings towards a disorganized religion? I understand you are not a fan of organized religions, do you have the same attitude towards disorganized ones? Thanks.

Quote: I don't know if God exists or not, but the people who believe in the organized religions have attempted to brainwash me extensively with the help of my parents during my younger years.

With the help of your parents? Your parents are religious?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Ok, so just that I have a clearer picture, do you have an example or two of a un/dis-organized religion for me? Just so that I can compare the two. Because from what you say, I really can't think of one -- leaving me with no point of reference. When you do give me an example, what are your feelings towards a disorganized religion? I understand you are not a fan of organized religions, do you have the same attitude towards disorganized ones? Thanks.

Here are some examples of organized religion: Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian, the people who are part of movements like Kach, and Muslim Fundamentalists.

For disorganized religion: Anyone who doesn't want to force their moral values onto other people and keeps their religion personal.

Duchifas wrote: With the help of your parents? Your parents are religious?

Well, to some extent, yes.

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: Ok, so just that I have a clearer picture, do you have an example or two of a un/dis-organized religion for me? Just so that I can compare the two. Because from what you say, I really can't think of one -- leaving me with no point of reference. When you do give me an example, what are your feelings towards a disorganized religion? I understand you are not a fan of organized religions, do you have the same attitude towards disorganized ones? Thanks.

Here are some examples of organized religion: Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian, the people who are part of movements like Kach, and Muslim Fundamentalists.

Kach? That's not a religious movement, it's a political movement. Kach folks are for the most part religious, but their ideology is really of a political nature.

Quote: For disorganized religion: Anyone who doesn't want to force their moral values onto other people and keeps their religion personal.

Well, do you have an example or two? I just want to compare...

Quote: Duchifas wrote: With the help of your parents? Your parents are religious?

Well, to some extent, yes.

I don't get it -- your parents are only religious to some extent, but they tried to brainwash you into some sort of fundamentalism, as I understand it? Never heard of something like that. Usually parents want kids to espouse pretty much the parents' views, so I don't get why people who are only religious to some extent would help brainwash you into fundamentalism. Very strange.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Kach? That's not a religious movement, it's a political movement. Kach folks are for the most part religious, but their ideology is really of a political nature. Well, do you have an example or two? I just want to compare...

You captured the essence of what I was trying to say: the groups that try to shove down their religious beliefs down everyone's throats through the state! Examples: the Christian fundamentalists, the Islamic fundamentalists!

Of course, I hope you realize that I am generalizing a bit.

Duchifas wrote: I don't get it -- your parents are only religious to some extent, but they tried to brainwash you into some sort of fundamentalism, as I understand it? Never heard of something like that. Usually parents want kids to espouse pretty much the parents' views, so I don't get why people who are only religious to some extent would help brainwash you into fundamentalism. Very strange.

It's not strange. By to some extent, I meant that they are religious, but like most religious people around the world, they are hypocrites because religions themselves are hypocritical.

[Duchifas]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Duchifas wrote: Kach? That's not a religious movement, it's a political movement. Kach folks are for the most part religious, but their ideology is really of a political nature. Well, do you have an example or two? I just want to compare...

You captured the essence of what I was trying to say: the groups that try to shove down their religious beliefs down everyone's throats through the state! Examples: the Christian fundamentalists, the Islamic fundamentalists!

Dude, again, Kach is essentially a political movement. True, a lot of its members are religious, but so what? A lot of Democrats are religious -- you wouldn't call them an organized religion, would you?

So I don't see what they are doing here.

Also, I still didn't see an example of a disorganized religion. Is it so hard to come up with one?

Or is it that the word "organized" isn't doing anything there, and in fact, you just don't like religion?

Quote: Of course, I hope you realize that I am generalizing a bit.

Well, I don't like crazed fanatics myself, especially when they fly airplanes into buildings. But I don't see what they have to do with organized religion, as you defined it earlier -- reward punishment system, religious clergy, and a holy book. Comon, the definition covers much more than fanatics.

So basically, what I am saying is that I still have no clue what you mean by organized vs. disorganized religion.

Comon, there must be examples of the latter out there...give me a few so I know what we are talking about?

Quote: Duchifas wrote: I don't get it -- your parents are only religious to some extent, but they tried to brainwash you into some sort of fundamentalism, as I understand it? Never heard of something like that. Usually parents want kids to espouse pretty much the parents' views, so I don't get why people who are only religious to some extent would help brainwash you into fundamentalism. Very strange.

It's not strange. By to some extent, I meant that they are religious, but like most religious people around the world, they are hypocrites because religions themselves are hypocritical.

Ok, that's more clear. Although, are you generalizing again? All religions are hypocritical? You mean the ideology of a religion itself is hypocritical, or some (perhaps many) of its followers are? There is a difference, isn't there?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Dude, again, Kach is essentially a political movement. True, a lot of its members are religious, but so what? A lot of Democrats are religious -- you wouldn't call them an organized religion, would you?

So I don't see what they are doing here.

Also, I still didn't see an example of a disorganized religion. Is it so hard to come up with one?

Or is it that the word "organized" isn't doing anything there, and in fact, you just don't like religion?

Well, I don't like crazed fanatics myself, especially when they fly airplanes into buildings. But I don't see what they have to do with organized religion, as you defined it earlier -- reward punishment system, religious clergy, and a holy book. Comon, the definition covers much more than fanatics.

So basically, what I am saying is that I still have no clue what you mean by organized vs. disorganized religion.

Comon, there must be examples of the latter out there...give me a few so I know what we are talking about?

My original distinction was incorrect. Now I realize that. I was thinking more about the religious fanatics in politics when I was talking about organized religion. For example people like Falwell, Ayatollah Khomeini, Bin Laden, rabbi Meir Kahane, Phelps, etc are examples of organized religion in politics.

Duchifas wrote: Ok, that's more clear. Although, are you generalizing again? All religions are hypocritical? You mean the ideology of a religion itself is hypocritical, or some (perhaps many) of its followers are? There is a difference, isn't there?

In my view, many of religious followers are hypocritical. While they all want you to live according to their moral values, they themselves break those very moral values more often than not. Besides, they are inflexible in the face of reason more often than not. They believe in dogma.

[Duchifas]

Quote: My original distinction was incorrect. Now I realize that.

Ok, that's better.

Quote: I was thinking more about the religious fanatics in politics when I was talking about organized religion. For example people like Falwell, Ayatollah Khomeini, Bin Laden, rabbi Meir Kahane, Phelps, etc are examples of organized religion in politics.

Again you use the term organized religion, and I still don't get what that is, since you can't give an example. Can you give an example of disorganized religion in politics?

Quote: In my view, many of religious followers are hypocritical.

I agree.

Quote: While they all want you to live according to their moral values, they themselves break those very moral values more often than not.

Yes, unfortunately true of many.

Quote: Besides, they are inflexible in the face of reason more often than not.

Are you saying that on the average, religious people are somehow stupider than secular people?

Quote: They believe in dogma.

Well, that's not really limited to religious people, that's just human nature. Millions in the USSR also believe in dogma -- of the commie variety. Millions in Germany believed in dogma of the nazi variety. So on and so forth. So I don't see how this trait is at all peculiar to religious people.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Duchifas wrote: Again you use the term organized religion, and I still don't get what that is, since you can't give an example. Can you give an example of disorganized religion in politics?

That's true! I used "organized religion" there. I should have used "dogmatic religous political associations" maybe?

Duchifas wrote: Are you saying that on the average, religious people are somehow stupider than secular people?

No, but many choose to ignore reason because their [interperetation] of their holy book says something else.

Duchifas wrote: Well, that's not really limited to religious people, that's just human nature. Millions in the USSR also believe in dogma -- of the commie variety. Millions in Germany believed in dogma of the nazi variety. So on and so forth. So I don't see how this trait is at all peculiar to religious people.

True, but we are talking about "dogmatic religious political associations" here! :wink: