After I wrote my last post, I read a news opinion. Michael Moore called for putting the mosque AT ground zero. The writer identified the same problem as I just wrote about, the conflict of bias. His solution was for MODERATES to take over the churches.
What is a moderate, someone who holds no hard beliefs. I do not believe in religious moderates. That may sound strange. I am not talking about the people we call extremists, they rarely even know what their religion teaches. Instead they follow their biases not the words of their founders.
I have said it before, if you do not believe what your "religion" believes, leave it rather than attempt to "modernize" it. If it wrong, it is wrong, if it is the truth, die for it. Not kill for it, die for it.
There was a church in China. The communists came in and said that each person had to renounce their faith or die. They asked who believed, a young girl walked up and said she would not renounce her faith. She was the first to speak. She was willing to die for what she believed in, that is religion, that is true faith. Moderates believe in nothing.
One of my professors was talking to us about politics, he said he could live with believers on either side but had no respect for moderates because they have no beliefs and are guided by the beliefs of society. That is what makes sheep, sheep. They go with the pack and stand for nothing. If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything.
Moderates cannot lead nor explain anything. They are always in the middle of extremists rather than trying to determine the truth, they seek harmony rather than truth. We should seek truth and to live in harmony.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
More Anti-Religious Garbage
You are being scammed with false arguments. The mosque at ground zero controversy is garbage and so is the burning of the Koran, it is all garbage meant to get you to take side that are not based on understanding but are based on bigotry. Now we have some Hasidic Jews suing over their "freedom of religion". They want to build a church and home and pool in a historic district. The historic district is attempting to stop them.
By pushing both issues at the same time, the hope is that you will willingly allow rules that weaken true religious belief. The Hasidic could build their synagogue anywhere, they chose the historic district for a reason, to create a problem. Now, the issue is should we be able to legislate historic districts, my answer is no. If the state wishes to have historic districts, eminent domain exists, buy the property.
Sometimes restrictions are placed in deeds, some are not allowed. The question is how much one can restrict the future owner of the property. There was a time when you could put in a deed that people could not sell the property to blacks. The courts said this was unenforceable. The question in regards to deeds is contractual. The issue should be one of effect on the seller and others.
If I sell you my house, I can say that you should not be able to turn it into a brothel as that would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The activity itself is not consistent with a family neighborhood and people bought houses to live in a family environment. Selling my house to a black family will not effect anyone unless they choose to interact with them. A brothel brings traffic.
It is important that we look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and ask ourselves what truths we hold dear and not which biases we love to hold onto. It is not a question of what people should be allowed to do, it is a question of under which circumstances they should be allowed to. It is a question of options and choices, the more we are limited the less additional limitations should be put on us or eventually we have no freedom.
By pushing both issues at the same time, the hope is that you will willingly allow rules that weaken true religious belief. The Hasidic could build their synagogue anywhere, they chose the historic district for a reason, to create a problem. Now, the issue is should we be able to legislate historic districts, my answer is no. If the state wishes to have historic districts, eminent domain exists, buy the property.
Sometimes restrictions are placed in deeds, some are not allowed. The question is how much one can restrict the future owner of the property. There was a time when you could put in a deed that people could not sell the property to blacks. The courts said this was unenforceable. The question in regards to deeds is contractual. The issue should be one of effect on the seller and others.
If I sell you my house, I can say that you should not be able to turn it into a brothel as that would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The activity itself is not consistent with a family neighborhood and people bought houses to live in a family environment. Selling my house to a black family will not effect anyone unless they choose to interact with them. A brothel brings traffic.
It is important that we look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and ask ourselves what truths we hold dear and not which biases we love to hold onto. It is not a question of what people should be allowed to do, it is a question of under which circumstances they should be allowed to. It is a question of options and choices, the more we are limited the less additional limitations should be put on us or eventually we have no freedom.
Religion versus Belief
There is an intellectual game going on. The game is one where "religion" and "faith" are redefined as "belief". I have discussed this before. The freedom in the Constitution is a freedom of religion, not of belief. We are currently seeing an attack on religion, not by stopping it but instead by saying any belief can be a "religion". It is a backdoor way of undermining your freedoms.
Religion requires a belief in the afterlife. The freedom was guaranteed because people will die for their religion knowing that there is something greater to come. The freedom was guaranteed so that people would know that they could live in America and have the right to practice what they believed so dearly.
The Pilgrims came to America to practice their religion, they were willing to die to come here, they gave up everything they had. Now we are downgrading this type of faith to belief. A young lady in North Carolina was told that she could not have a nose piercing while in school, she said it violated her religion. She belongs to a "church" that believes body modification is an expression of self, they believe in no Deity, no God. This is not a religion.
Every belief is not a religion. I have no problem with saying that the girl is acting on her freedom of expression; but, they chose to call it a religion and that is simply a lie. Atheism is not a religion, it is a belief. The founding fathers knew the difference and that is why they talked about freedom of speech and expression.
It is the most cynical thing in the world to classify all beliefs as religious, it shows a true disregard for peoples faiths. Faith and religion are based on worship not like. Faith is not belief, the word used in the bible for faith means to rest your whole weight on, to risk everything for it. The same word used for faith in the old testament is used to describe leaning on a walking stick. It is about a faith that you rely on and act on, a trust that cannot be denied. I doubt this girl has faith in the nose piercing.
Father Damien was a priest who moved to a leper colony to help them when nobody else would. He contracted the disease and died. That man had faith. To compare some child who wants to wear a nose ring to Father Damien or someone who is truly living their faith is disgusting to me. It takes away from what people have done for real faith.
I disagree with her school telling her that she cannot have a piercing, that is a violation of her freedom of speech and of body. She is forced to go to school (and I have discussed this before), because the state requires her to go to school (a restriction on her rights in and of itself) it should be limited in what it can require of her in other ways. She has not violated societies laws.
There will be some who will attempt to compare the restriction on her body piercing to the outlawing of burqas in France, they are not the same and I have already discussed the burqas. Both are an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the real issues. In France it is about her religion and the media discussion is about clothing, in the United States the issue is about clothing and the media wishes to discuss religion.
Our ability to define words, to use them with precision denies the ability to make good judgements. The truth is that most people will read the article and take sides not based on what the Constitution meant; but, instead it will be based on how it effects them or how they feel about burqas or piercings. If we willing chip away at the constitution by ignoring it's intent we have no law.
Religion requires a belief in the afterlife. The freedom was guaranteed because people will die for their religion knowing that there is something greater to come. The freedom was guaranteed so that people would know that they could live in America and have the right to practice what they believed so dearly.
The Pilgrims came to America to practice their religion, they were willing to die to come here, they gave up everything they had. Now we are downgrading this type of faith to belief. A young lady in North Carolina was told that she could not have a nose piercing while in school, she said it violated her religion. She belongs to a "church" that believes body modification is an expression of self, they believe in no Deity, no God. This is not a religion.
Every belief is not a religion. I have no problem with saying that the girl is acting on her freedom of expression; but, they chose to call it a religion and that is simply a lie. Atheism is not a religion, it is a belief. The founding fathers knew the difference and that is why they talked about freedom of speech and expression.
It is the most cynical thing in the world to classify all beliefs as religious, it shows a true disregard for peoples faiths. Faith and religion are based on worship not like. Faith is not belief, the word used in the bible for faith means to rest your whole weight on, to risk everything for it. The same word used for faith in the old testament is used to describe leaning on a walking stick. It is about a faith that you rely on and act on, a trust that cannot be denied. I doubt this girl has faith in the nose piercing.
Father Damien was a priest who moved to a leper colony to help them when nobody else would. He contracted the disease and died. That man had faith. To compare some child who wants to wear a nose ring to Father Damien or someone who is truly living their faith is disgusting to me. It takes away from what people have done for real faith.
I disagree with her school telling her that she cannot have a piercing, that is a violation of her freedom of speech and of body. She is forced to go to school (and I have discussed this before), because the state requires her to go to school (a restriction on her rights in and of itself) it should be limited in what it can require of her in other ways. She has not violated societies laws.
There will be some who will attempt to compare the restriction on her body piercing to the outlawing of burqas in France, they are not the same and I have already discussed the burqas. Both are an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the real issues. In France it is about her religion and the media discussion is about clothing, in the United States the issue is about clothing and the media wishes to discuss religion.
Our ability to define words, to use them with precision denies the ability to make good judgements. The truth is that most people will read the article and take sides not based on what the Constitution meant; but, instead it will be based on how it effects them or how they feel about burqas or piercings. If we willing chip away at the constitution by ignoring it's intent we have no law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)