Popular Religion and Esoteric Spirituality

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Riiiight!!! Try getting elected without stating a belief in God. And the assertion of trusting in God on all our currency has of course nothing to do with religion, right?

These things have nothing to do with policy

And the oath of allegience has of course no reference to religion, right?

a ceremonial formality - if one pledges obedience to god and fails to be obedient to god some time later are they taken to court or reprimanded in any way?

And the Bush sponsored government funded faith based initiative has of coyusre nothing to with religion, right?

Jon, from Eau Claire, WI writes:
Why has all of the Bush administration's faith based grant money been awarded exclusively to Christian organizations? Shouldn't Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and other organizations be equally entitled to this pool of taxpayer money?

James Towey
Jon, I have to correct you. It simply isn't true. I think PBS reported this and now everyone thinks that only Christian groups get grants. Ask Jewish Family Service in Albuquerque, or Jewish Family and Children Services in Long Beach, CA. They all have received Compassion Capital Fund dollars, as have Buddhist and Muslim groups. Finally, while we don't track which organizations get money based on whether they are Christian or Jewish or Muslim, the fact is that the Compassion Capital Fund money went to a number of state universities - and even to the United Way of Upper Massachusetts Bay (hardly a faith-based provider, much less a Christian one). I agree with you - all groups, whether faith-based or secular, should be able to fairly compete, and let the best one win the grant.

from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040602.html

if it appears dominantly xtian its probably just because the usa is dominantly xtian - at the very least it is not exclusive to a particular branch of theism or even strict theism

 

[Cris]

Light,

These things have nothing to do with policy

The pledge is required in state schools – i.e. institutions run by the government – i.e. the government is sponsoring religion because the pledge has a religious requirement.

a ceremonial formality –

Are you saying the pledge is meaningless then? I think you are seriously mistaken. When Newdow recently tried to have the under god clause ruled unconstitutional every politician in Washington grouped together in a very public display to voice the pledge and emphasize the religious component. That is not the action one would expect of a secular political system.

if one pledges obedience to god and fails to be obedient to god some time later are they taken to court or reprimanded in any way?

The pledge is to the country not to a god. Your point is very tenuous.

You are missing the point on the faith based initiative – it simply should not exist in a secular environment. This was an overt attempt by Bush to bypass the separation of church and state by engineering a deceitful method to allow the government to give money to his beloved religion. The fact that it has become a bureaucratic quagmire is another issue.

 

[Cris]

Light,

So the images we saw on TV of ranting Muslims burning effigies of the Pope was an act of peaceful disagreement then?

actually the general principle I was advocating was that a process, in this case religion, implies real and apparent application

Because in the past religion ruled the world. We don’t need it now, although we do need a suitable replacement, one that doesn’t exist effectively in the USA yet.

even scandinavia owes its social heritage (recent heritage too in terms of historical chronology) to Christianity

How things evolved is not the issue. It is the conclusion that the religious component is no longer required.

BG 2.44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.

They are just regular people who get by more effectively without a religious component in their lives. No need to over-analyze and read into more than there is.

You allude that religion is synonomous with civil decay

No I did not. I said that religion isn’t necessary for an effective social structure.

.. in otherwords you don't give clear reasons of the elements of social decay intrinsic to theism and why theism should be abandoned, aside from your atheistic fervour to see theism fail

because I din’t say any of that.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ These things have nothing to do with policy ”

The pledge is required in state schools – i.e. institutions run by the government – i.e. the government is sponsoring religion because the pledge has a religious requirement.

a strong policy has clear ramifications for transgressing it - if one does not pledge allegience to one nation under god or one thinks money is great but certainly doesn't trust god will they be persecuted? (or are they only persecuted when they perform crimes against national security?)

“ a ceremonial formality – ”

Are you saying the pledge is meaningless then? I think you are seriously mistaken. When Newdow recently tried to have the under god clause ruled unconstitutional every politician in Washington grouped together in a very public display to voice the pledge and emphasize the religious component. That is not the action one would expect of a secular political system.

Its practically secular already unless you can establish as above

“ if one pledges obedience to god and fails to be obedient to god some time later are they taken to court or reprimanded in any way? ”

The pledge is to the country not to a god. Your point is very tenuous.

So you admit that the whole thing is nationalistic?

You are missing the point on the faith based initiative – it simply should not exist in a secular environment. This was an overt attempt by Bush to bypass the separation of church and state by engineering a deceitful method to allow the government to give money to his beloved religion. The fact that it has become a bureaucratic quagmire is another issue.

the gov't has a social duty to its citizens and if religious institutions are doing such services why shouldn't they receive funding? - what do you think the Jewish Family Service in Albuquerque and the Children Services in Long Beach do with all the money? Buy dust jackets for their bibles?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

So the images we saw on TV of ranting Muslims burning effigies of the Pope was an act of peaceful disagreement then?

compared to the billion muslims in the world it was only a handful

“ actually the general principle I was advocating was that a process, in this case religion, implies real and apparent application ”

Because in the past religion ruled the world. We don’t need it now, although we do need a suitable replacement, one that doesn’t exist effectively in the USA yet.

I can't see the connection between my post and your response

“ even scandinavia owes its social heritage (recent heritage too in terms of historical chronology) to Christianity ”

How things evolved is not the issue. It is the conclusion that the religious component is no longer required.

who's conclusion?

“ BG 2.44 In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place. ”

They are just regular people who get by more effectively without a religious component in their lives. No need to over-analyze and read into more than there is.

I was suggesting why they might feel that way

“ You allude that religion is synonomous with civil decay ”

No I did not. I said that religion isn’t necessary for an effective social structure.

Advanced secularization in the Scandinavian countries has not resulted in the elimination of "the religious factor" from political life, rather has it led to a resurgence with the recent establishment in Sweden, Denmark and Finland of native counterparts to Norway's Christian People's Party.

from
Scandinavian christian democracy: Throwback or Portent?
by John T. S Madley

 

[Leo Volont]

In the o-so-esoteric sufi culture, it is almost mandatory to charge or accept something in exchange for spiritual knowledge.

Well, yes, because these are Traditions that go back to a time when that World was Civilized. Society had an Order. Wise Men and Gurus were identifiable. And Custom arranged so that they would never have to ASK to be paid.

Now they ASK.

Of course if somebody quits their day job and goes out to become a Professional holy man, then there really is no choice, is there.

Also, there is the matter of crowd control.

charging money keeps the crowds down.

Once I heard of a Guru who started to keep young women around and occassionally he would even bounce one up and down on his knee. One of his very old Devotees was shocked and asked the Old Guru about it, and the Old Guru said that there had lately been too many new Devotees showing up, and so he decided that if he 'disgraced' himself, things would go back to normal again.