In 2009 Religion Will Cause More Trouble and Be In More Trouble

Things are looking up, at least regarding the civility of the responders, here.

Depak does not understand human beings, period. Not many of us do, but it is the responsibility of an essayist to acknowledge human nature, and its results.

In the beginning, humans socialized. That meant government. Government means laws having to do with the survival of any social group. Humans don't much like obeying laws, even the ones they themselves made. Ergo, a power greater than humans is needed. Our idea, human's idea, was/is maybe we can get folks to obey human laws if there is "something else" to answer to.

Religion is a tool of many people/governments, or else human force is. Some humans prefer human force, some prefer the force of the "something else." Some like a mix of both. Many, nowadays, can't make up their mind which is preferable.

Let's not forget the whole idea is for a lasting society, which, for most of us, means our country.

What is actually going on is, since 1945, about 15% of humans, through their nations, are trying the experiment of nationhood, successful nationhood, without using military conquest, as one of the main sources of their riches.

If religion helps that, a nation will use it. If they think they can get along without it, they'll not use it.

Considering the Roman Empire was, in its government, the most religious of all empires, it was also the longest lasting.

So, it will be a while until that lesson is unlearned.

My bet is that no nation will survive for long, without religion as one of its fundamental institutions. None ever has.

Accordingly, survival of the nation is the point, whatever it has to do to survive. That's the human way of things. That is the trump. One wastes time and energy arguing against religion. It is a tried and true way of nation survival.

Depak, dear boy, show me another.

No, he can't. Depak, like so many others, simply does not care for human nature, and the institutions it has created for its societal survival.

May the best human warrior win, I always say.

My point is that secularism, without militarism, cannot produce a surviving nation. Religionism can't, either. That fact seems to help you all obfuscate exactly what, and how, human nature produces a successful nation.

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "I am saying that IN a DEMOCRACY the PEOPLE SHOULD BE the CONSCIENCE OF the NATION, NOT the CHURCH.

I agree that the Church should not be the conscience of the Nation but I do not believe that the Nation should be the conscience of a person nor should the Church be the conscience of a person.

You also wrote, "On the main thread, you'll find a post by MPatalinjug. These are my views, replete with justification."

I haven't read this yet but I will.

Then you wrote, "I have no problem with anyone believing anything that serves them well and does not harm others."

It doesn't matter to me either what anyone believes and I happen to believe that anyone forcing themself or their beliefs on another is wrong. Expressing one's beliefs, even if others take offense at these beliefs, I believe, is one of the fundamental rights that were codified in the founding documents of this country.

Thank you for your reply.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum,

On the main thread, you'll find a post by MPatalinjug. These are my views, replete with justification.

We've corresponded before, of course. Our views on religion, politics, and on the proper relations between the two differ. That's all.

I have no problem with anyone believing anything that serves them well and does not harm others.

Farnaz

Good post. I basically agree w/Deepak.

Some users show deep fear. Should try not to be so fearful about personal opinions. No one is attacking you.

Relax.

Thomas Baum,

You write:

"Are you saying that the state should become people's "conscience"?"

NO. I am saying that the church should not be the people's conscience as it is in say, Saudi Arabia or in Somalia or in Iran.

I am saying that IN a DEMOCRACY the PEOPLE SHOULD BE the CONSCIENCE OF the NATION, NOT the CHURCH.

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "What does your birth place have to do with this discussion?

I have never lived anywhere except the USA which includes being overseas in the service. I have never had to live in a place that can tell me what religion I can and cannot belong too.

Aren't you from Iran? Doesn't Iran have discriminatory practices toward religion? Haven't you or people you know been on the receiving end of these discriminatory practices?

How can you say "Organized religions need to go.", when you and/or ones you know personally have been treated as such?

Sometimes people say what they mean before they realize that they have said it.

Yes, there should be seperation of church and state and I believe that the founding fathers were divinely inspired when they wrote this whether they realized it or not.

As far as "the end of "conscience clauses" for hospitals,", I would like to ask a question.

If someone thinks that sticking a vacumn cleaner inside of a woman and sucking the brains out of an almost born child is more than "just a procedure", in your opinion should they be required to do that? Is this one of your "conscience clauses" that you would include in your end of "conscience clauses"?

Are you saying that the state should become people's "conscience"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TIME TO TAKE THOSE CAPTURED 'SUICIDE BOMBERS' AND PUT THEM ON TV ++++ WITH MAJOR COVERAGE ++++ SAYING THEY'D BEEN 'TRICKED.'

BY ANALOGY TO VIETNAM, UNTIL THOSE IN POWER STARTED HAVING THEIR SONS & DAUGHTERS SERVE AS SUICIDE BOMBERS [IN VIETNAM, IT WAS THE DRAFT] THOSE IN POSITIONS OF POWER IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD WILL CONTINUE TO USE ++++ CHEAP LABOR ++++ I.E., SOMEONE ELSE'S SON OR DAUGHTER ++++ TO DO THE DIRTY WORK. AND THEY WILL SEEK OUT VICTIMS TO CARRY THEIR SUICIDE ATTACKS AMONGST THE INJURED.

DERANGED INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY DUE TO DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE, OR OTHER MAJOR LIFE TRAUMAS ALWAYS RESERVE SUICIDE AS THEIR 'LAST ESCAPE' FROM REALITY -- UNTIL THEY REALIZE THAT SUICIDE IS NO ESCAPE, OR THEY, ONCE AGAIN CHOOSE LIFE.
--------------------
GIVING UP ONE'S LIFE FOR ANOTHER IS PERHAPS NOBLE, BUT IT IS NOT AS NOBLE AS LEARNING HOW TO FORGIVE AND THEN MOVE ON.

FORGIVENESS IS THE GREATEST HUMAN ATTRIBUTE, FOR IN A WORLD OF PERFECT JUSTICE, OR PERFECT KARMA, DESTRUCTION IS THE RESULT.

PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE SAME GOD, HAVE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS NOT LIVED IN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AS RADICAL FORMS OF ISLAM WERE EXPORTED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, THEREIN CONFLICT HAS BEEN BREWED ANEW.

I agree with farnaz2, thomasbaum. One of the basic concepts our government was founded on was separation of church and state. That doesn't mean we are going to be a godless nation. It means that no one religious faith has precedence over any other- especially in matters of law.

the new "conscience" rules are a perfect example- not of conscience, or faith, but of selfishness and irresponsibility to others, as well as your profession. People who feel the need to impose their religious faith on their profession, and so deny others the care they are entitled to, have no business being in the health field.

Hello, Thomas Baum,

I was born here and I like the fact that the USA has freedom of religion, among other freedoms, at least as far as I know we still do. Is this what you are suggesting?
-------------------------
What does your birth place have to do with this discussion?

I'm not suggesting we prohibit freedom of religion. I am suggesting a complete separation of church and state. The consequences of this would range from no "swearing in" ceremonies of any sort, secular marriage, no role for clergy in matters legislative, e.g., choice, gay marriage, etc., the end of "conscience clauses" for hospitals, the end of tax exempt status for religious groups.

Dr. Chopra, I'm afraid many of your comments about the triumph of secularism hold merit. Considering the weight of people in our culture who believe such ridiculous things about religion in general, it does seem unlikely that serious religious thinkers will have much influence for the better in our national dialog. It certainly seems that we are following closely in the footsteps of secular Europe. So much the worse for us.

FARNAZ2

You wrote, "Organized religions need to go".

Should we throw away the USA and it's constitution and the Bill of Rights while we are at it?

I was born here and I like the fact that the USA has freedom of religion, among other freedoms, at least as far as I know we still do. Is this what you are suggesting?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is useless to argue whether it is believers of God, atheists, philosophers, or ideologues that caused all the sufferings and killings. Man is basically evil deep inside. Man like to add, subtract and twist the Word of God to support his prejudices, fear and pride. The water is pure but the container is dirty. I am a Christian and I believe many Christians have done the world a lot of good too. Examples: missionary schools, orphanages, hospitals including scientific progress. I suggest that those who wishes to understand Christianity make some effort to join a Bible Study Course and not to rely on third parties.

Ken16:

The Jacobins were not good guys, to be sure, but the total number of deaths in the 'terror' was about 35,000. Nothing like the 3 million Native Americans murdered by the U.S. and its predecessor colonies. Nothing like the 15-20 million killed by the Spanish and the Portuguese in South and Central America. Yes, Stalin was evil, but he did nothing in the name of atheism. He used Leninism as a replacement for religion. Same fervor, same bigotry, same mass murder.

Organized religions need to go. All of them. Hinduism is organized enough, even more embedded, wedded to cultural stratification than Islam and needs to be on the same train to Elsewhere as the others.

Although religion is only one of the several elements that comprise Tribalism, without the god chimera, other tribal idols might loosen their hold on human intelligence.

Deepak: "The stalemate between the benefits of religion and its harmful influence has decisively shifted. As the coming year will sadly demonstrate, the harm outweighs the good..."

Excellent stuff there.

The record will show, that there are people who saw this coming. Organized religion as we know it, is on the wane. It wont be fast, and it wont be a clean finish, but the days where religion can hide behind sanctimoniousness (now in the age of information) are about done.

When a star burns out, its energy too takes a while to see. The results and manifestations of its collapse arent immediate.

The criticism of organized religion by Mr. Chopra and others on this blog are valid. .

Organized religion has been a cause of many wars, but nonreligious people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao have also committed genocides. So there must be a better way. The better way is to make religion only about spirituality and philosophy, and not about group politics and power.

Fortunately, Vedanta already provides such a system. If you don't know what it is, please take some time to learn its basic concepts. Don't confuse it with "Hinduism". Hinduism is a catch-all term in the english language and is a word of relatively recent creation. People get very emotional (defensive and offensive) about Hinduism.

Please notice that Deepak Chopra chose the phrase ORGANIZED religion. He usually chooses his words very carefully. Organized religion is often code for Western religions which includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the East (especially India) religion is spirituality and philosophy (Vedanta). Social and political issues are often confused with spirituality under the umbrella of Hinduism (a non-organized religion).

Vedanta is a monistic nondualistic philosophy which is the opposite of Western religions. The "my god is better than your god" concept cannot exist because there is no separation of god and the individual (conscious self). This is difficult to comprehend in the West, but it is a very powerful notion for the basis of spirituality and philosophy.

Remember this: Wars specifically over religion have always involved at least one religion with an underlying philosophy of dualism (Western religion). Religion should be for the spiritual evolution of the individual, not about having a superior god or proselytizing.

Religion causes nothing but trouble, and it will continue to do so as long as people need this drug.

Deepak Chopra is a guru who hawks is own "philosophy" to enrich himself. He is no different. Another con artist.

"The stalemate between the benefits of religion and its harmful influence has decisively shifted."

Bravo for that, sir.

Religion always causes problems and has since the birth of mankind. We still have idiotic generals chest-thumping that "my God is stronger than your God", idiot suicide bombers killing people in the name of religion, more idiots demanding to control the lives of people who don't believe the same things they do.
A wise person once said that your Heaven and Hell are here on earth. Whether true or not, religion has been the cause of horrific torture, death and destruction over the years, no matter how much "love and good" followers of various sects claim for it.

Of course Mr Chopra is correct.

The powerful religions (fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, Catholicism) rely on ignorance and superstition rather than knowledge and true morality.

The healthiest societies in the world are the most educated and the least "God-Fearing." (think about that term: superstition, the Thunder God). And that trend will continue.

Thank God.

RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES.

Karl Marx.

We should see more Marxists (anti-organized religion) in 2009. That would be a sign of hope.

If religious faith is the cause of violence and secularism the antidote, avowed secularists like the Jacobins and Communists would not have been responsible for more murderous regimes than all Christian nations together. Deepak ignores the facts of history to perpetuate his own delusions."
So, how do you account for the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch trials? These were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church (which may not be considered your brand of Christian - but they still believe in Christ and the Trinity) and the Puritans which you have to admit were Christian with a capital "C". What do you consider the extermination of the Jews by Hilter? - I believe the Pope sanctioned that at the time. The bombing of abortion clinics? The hanging of African Americans by the KKK (who went to church on Sunday) - the killing of gays? Are those Christian acts?
While I admit that there have been and will continue to be many atrocities carried out by non-christians and communistic governments, WE are supposed to be a democratic form of government with no litmus test of religion or Christianity - yet we commit acts that are not Christ like. So don't hold us up to be paragons of virtue. Take the log out of your eye before you point out the plank in others.

It is quite obvious that the ONLY purpose of religion is to create tribal groups that are self selected rather than purely based on birth! These tribal groups can then claim the time honored right to kill, maim, torture, enslave, destroy anyone not of the tribe with impunity and in many cases righteous exaltation to the tribal religious reward. Therefore, except for nationlist tribal practices, religion has been the source and the cause of almost all wars, genocides, and gross inhuman actions toward their fellow man and the rest of God's creations!!

If religious faith is the cause of violence and secularism the antidote, avowed secularists like the Jacobins and Communists would not have been responsible for more murderous regimes than all Christian nations together. Deepak ignores the facts of history to perpetuate his own delusions.