So, I was just looking at the website Sam mentioned in class today (www.chick.com), and I found this:
this. (The portion I'm referencing is in about the middle of the comic, when they start talking about Communism).
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that this organization is actively linking itself to Chinese Communism. They even go so far as to suggest that Mao stole his propaganda techniques from fundamentalist Christians!
This makes me wonder: do the people who run this organization have any idea what they are saying? Have they never learned about The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Perhaps these statements are borne out of genuine ignorance, but, unless they are, it seems to me that they are supportinng manipulation and brainwashing to further their own agenda (namely, converting others to their religion).
(Please understand: I don't have a problem with religion in general. I just oppose people who try to force their beliefs on others, and it seems to be the case here.)
Thoughts?
-Paige Walker-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
As I mentioned at the end of class today, I think we really have to be careful regarding how we define "religion". Not only are there different levels of "religiosity", but, in many cases, referring to someone or something as "religious" carries a negative connotation. Are we associating "religion" with hypocrisy?
Just another note in response to Paige's final comment:
"Please understand: I don't have a problem with religion in general. I just oppose people who try to force their beliefs on others, and it seems to be the case here."
I think we have to be careful, also, that we don't confuse the presentation of religious information/ideas with the "forcing of beliefs" on us. If someone is passionate about what s/he believes, doesn't it seem natural that s/he would want to share what s/he has found to be true? (And I realize that we have had discussions on absolute truth... but my question, I think, is still legitimate.) Where is the line that we draw between presentation of religious beliefs/ideas and the "forcing" of religion? Do we even draw a line-- or do we disregard all "religion" as forceful as soon as emotion is added and it becomes less based on information/history and more based in the realm of faith?
I know in class we touched briefly upon the idea that "religion" is exclusive, and people seem to have a problem with that. Well, if people have a problem with religion being exclusive, then why do we complain when it attempts to be inclusive?
I think my base question is... are we condemning the methods of sharing beliefs or religion itself? Are we condemning religion itself, or merely Christianity, because it seems to be the biggest sinner in respect to "forcing beliefs" on others? And these are sincere questions... I'm not trying to judge, I just want to be sure of what we are discussing/arguing.
(By the way, I use quotation marks when referring to "religion" because I don't think we are all necessarily referring to the same thing-- I think we all have different affective connotations/definitions attached to it.)
Emily T.
I agree that there is nothing wrong spread religious ideas because you think they are right. I think the problems arise when people try to argue about which religion is correct . As we learned from Hayakawa, there is no way to win a religious argument because there are no extensional definitions. The problem is that some religions condemn other religions. This leads to unnecessary war and hatred!
There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your religion, but condemning others for believing in a different religion creates unnecessary difficulties.
As far as how religious someone is, I think it just depends on what you call yourself. If you think you are very religious, you are!
Thoughts?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Throughout class today, I was reminded of a passage regarding those who flaunt faith. (I will not be putting faith or religion in quotation because I think we've established that the definitions need further discussion.)I personally believe that one's faith is between that person and whatever higher power must know. Advertising one's faith as well as imposing it, are then excessive and ruin the purity of the human/great big man in the sky relationship.
Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
Similar to a previous discussion we had on the word "love", I think that faith means something different to every person, making it personal and something that cannot be successfully imposed on anyone else. Using religious faith to bind nations together or tear people apart is, in my opinion, hypocritical. It is something that cannot be expected to be common to everyone, even if they practice the same religion.
My thoughts on the religion vs. the religious conflict are somewhat fuzzy. Is it possible that some people become so zealous about their faith that they begin to become so infatuated with rules and regulations that they forget their purpose? Do constant reminder of the rules then creates a distaste for their creator?
This is my opinion on the matter. I'm not saying it's necessarily the "truth". I really really super duper hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm really bad at that...
(Megan West)
Megan, I think you are hitting a key point when you ask this question:
"Is it possible that some people become so zealous about their faith that they begin to become so infatuated with rules and regulations that they forget their purpose?"
If you notice (I will use Christianity because I am most familiar with it), Jesus was angry with the Pharisees because they were so legalistic-- they spend so much time focusing on minute laws that they many times seemed to forget whom they were serving. Here's an example:
Mark 7:6-8-- He [Jesus] replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites [the Pharisees]; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
As we have discussed traditions of society so much, this passage also seems appropriate. It seems that the Pharisees are simply following the "traditions of men" and have lost focus on God's laws. So, yes, I definitely think that people can become over-zealous about rules, etc. And, of course, if a religion is based solely on rules that must be strictly adhered to, and not on grace, then everyone involved in that religion can be considered a hypocrite to a certain extent because no one is perfect-- we're human and we all have flaws.
Emily T.
Megan, by the way, I don't really understand what you mean by:
"Advertising one's faith as well as imposing it, are then excessive and ruin the purity of the human/great big man in the sky relationship.
I would appreciate clarification :)
Emily T.
There is a basic problem with the way religions operate which causes them to be the most corruptable and blatantly devisive systems that man has ever created. The truth is that every main religion boils down to answering the question "What happens after we die?" In this respect, we can understand why religion gives people a sense of comfort. But, there are limitations. In order to gain salvation, you must conform to a rigid set of standards and codes. In this way, religion is far too easily perverted by the hands of imperfect human beings.
Thus, because most religions (I'm speaking in generalizations because I don't want take up space offering examples) hinge on the necessity of strict and unquestioning subservience, they perpetuate themselves through munipulation. Because the fear of death is so strongly rooted in the human psyche, people will cling to anything, no matter how irrational or illogical it is. The absolute certainty needed to facillitate these beliefs just provides for close-mindedness. This is the danger of organized orthodoxy; it provokes mob thinking and obstructs progression. Think of any agent of change that is now viewed positively by society. Chances are it was opposed by people claiming to be doing "God's Work."
I guess the main idea of my ranting is that religiosity is no longer needed. It is the vestigial organ of society. One does not need the guidance of an archaic text to live a full and morally righteous life. To say that without religion morality as we know it would not exist is a detriment to the human condition. There is no correlation between secularism and sinfulness as is evident by a number of our free-thinking allies.
One does not need to accept the barabarous tenets of a belief system procured in the bronze age to hope for life after death or theorize on the existence of a higher power. But we need to accept the fact that WE DON'T KNOW. And that NO ONE KNOWS. We should never be certain about anything, as the teachings of Hayakawa have shown us.
Okay, I'm done. I'm sure I offended someone, but political correctness has never been my strong suit.
(Taylor)
After reading these comments, I thought of something I need clarification on.
Someone today said that religion was a "mechanism of selfishness" because we are most likely to follow doctrines in hopes of salvation and life after death. Yet I don't quite understand how this is so. The religion is open to all, is it not? Isn't that same option available for any who may desire it? I find religion to be far from selfish. In fact, it is yet another tool to guide us in this adventure called life. Let's rethink this: Are we really juding the religion or the people who manifest it? Just like the discussion about the existence of God versus religion, there is a significant difference.
Religion is, after all, a human device, created by humans, for humans. It is sure to be flawed. The Creator (whether you believe in one or not) is infallible, yes. Yet we are very prone to making mistakes. And whether you believe in this or not (it is merely a reference, don't hurt me!): Eve was human, and like many humans do, she made a mistake.
Disclaimer (the other two I posted just don't seem to be enough): I am not forcing anything upon anyone; I am merely raising points for the sake of discussion.
Thank you,
Sam Maliha
Wow, I just posted my comment at the same time as Taylor did. And some of the same topics are covered...so sorry about that!
(Sam Maliha)
This comment, I guess, is mainly in response to Taylor's comment. No, Taylor, I am not offended at all-- but I think that if it's okay for you to express strongly what you believe, then everyone else should be able to do the same. So, here I go...
"In order to gain salvation, you must conform to a rigid set of standards and codes. In this way, religion is far too easily perverted by the hands of imperfect human beings."- Taylor
Taylor, I think there is a misunderstanding here, at least from the background that I am coming from. (I will use Christianity as the foundation my argument, because, again, I am most familiar with it.) Yes, there are laws that God has put in place for us to adhere to, and, yes, humans make big mistakes (after all, you have stated that we are imperfect human beings). What I think you are missing is the grace that is involved:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith..." Ephesians 2:8
"Thus, because most religions hinge on the necessity of strict and unquestioning subservience, they perpetuate themselves through manipulation. Because the fear of death is so strongly rooted in the human psyche, people will cling to anything, no matter how irrational or illogical it is. The absolute certainty needed to facilitate these beliefs just provides for close-mindedness."- Taylor
I cannot agree with the idea that "because most religions hinge on the necessity of strict and unquestioning subservience, they perpetuate themselves through manipulation." Isn't being religiously affiliated a choice? How is this manipulation? Yes, maybe there are consequences for not "adhering" to "rules", but before a person chooses to associate him/herself with a religion, chances are good that that person knows what s/he is getting into, and if s/he doesn't, s/he can just as easily "get out" of it. Using your idea that "religion boils down to answering the question 'What happens after we die?'", isn't the person getting something in return for the comforting feeling of the idea of having hope for the "after-life"? I don't necessarily agree with that method of reasoning, but I think the question is still legitimate.
Also, concerning the last sentence in the above quote, does believing something automatically mean “close-mindedness”? If I am passionate about my faith, does that mean that I am a close-minded individual? I would imagine that many people have strong principles, morals, beliefs, etc.—does that make everyone with a strong belief or unwavering faith close-minded?
“One does not need the guidance of an archaic text to live a full and morally righteous life.”- Taylor
I must say that I agree with this statement, but I will add that, for many people, religion is a basis for morals and what “living a moral life” looks like. (But, I guess this depends on how we define "moral"-- and I would imagine that we all have different definitions.)
“But we need to accept the fact that WE DON'T KNOW. And that NO ONE KNOWS.”- Taylor
Isn’t that what faith is all about?
Emily T.
First, I would like to address what Sam brought up. I think the whole 'mechanism of selfishness' is completely true, especially in times of crisis, as we brought up in class. Basically, Sam, I probably need some clarification about the point you made about the availability of religion. Also, you ask if we are really judging the religion or the people who manifest it, but isn't religion a human creation? Therefore, I don't see why we can't make such a judgment. I honestly don't see the significant difference you're talking about.
Next, I want to address what Emily brought up about the choice people have with religion. It's true that some people have the choice of which religion they wish to follow. However, what about the people who were given a religion at birth? First, they had no say in what religion they wanted. Second, it's not like they can get out of such a religion so easily, especially if their lives involve religious practices and teachings on a regular basis. Also, the religious experiences one has affects one's semantic environment, just like any other experience. Therefore, one can never really 'get out of it'.
In response to Mary's last comment: if a certain religion is so distasteful to a person that s/he no longer wants to associate him/herself with it, wouldn't it be so despite semantic environment, etc.? Also, what about converts? The implication is that a person is associated with one religion then switches and associates him/herself with another religion. In addition, there comes a point in religion where the faith is no longer that of a person's childhood or family-- this is when the choice is made and the faith becomes one's own (does that make any sense?).
Emily T.
After reading all of these comments, I have concluded that this argument is utterly pointless. Sorry to be rash.
Emily's right. There's a point in life when we begin to take our beliefs into our own hands. We refuse to be spoon-fed and nurtured by the guidance of our guardians. I chose to have faith in my religion. You may not. That is completely fine with me! But like so many of us said in class, we do not care for the thing (religion) itself, but the way in which it is "symbolized". (I hope that makes sense to you guys.)
I had a feeling we would get a little mixed up, and as I mentioned before, we're not arguing which side is right or wrong. We merely want a solution to what one party may see as oppression from another party.
One of our fellow students in class was disappointed in an assumption made by her own family member due to her religious views. She made clear, however, that the religion did not irk her in the least bit; the "religious" family member did.
I just wanted to say this to make sure we weren't getting into "id" territory. That's the last place we want to be in a discussion such as this one.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment