OtherkinPhenomena: Forum

Full Version: The evils of Catholicism (and other Judeo-Christian fun)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Archer Wrote:
WhiteFox Wrote:So if the state tried to do such a thing now, it would be even more frowned upon than it would be back then, because there's relatively more at stake now. There's more people that might be affected and discriminated against based on different religions. I believe it's mostly because of such variety that the separation between church and state rule is a bigger deal now than it was back then.

On the other hand - Bush's religious views/motivation are pretty well known, Obama is (I believe) publically endorsed by some high profile preacher or other, and on this side of the Atlantic the US looks like being pretty much obsessed with the "religious right". On top of that there is the Bible Belt, etc etc etc.

Given that - I don't think it's unlikely that a group of very religious, right wing Christians could get elected to positions of power, and surrounded themselves with equally right wing Christian advisors and administrators. If that happened, and if they tried to install assorted pro-Christian laws, would enough people be annoyed enough to stop them?

I mean I would *hope* they would, but my cynicism is not so sure.
In a way I doubt it. People are afraid of going to jail or being shot because they "are TeRRoRisTS!11!"... As much as it sucks. I know my friends would all be against it. I still believe though that Obama is better than Clinton or whoever the white dude is (forgot his name, he wants us to be in Iraq for "100 years if it takes that!").

Sure, I think he will probably be shot within 6 months by a bunch of angry rednecks who despise black people (or at least they'll attempt to), but I think hed be a better president.

Now, the religious crap irks me. There are no pagans or athiests that I know of in any of the electoral... lawmaking positions. (I dont feel like naming them all, so sue me). That means that it's somewhat likely they may want to start slipping those ideas in there.
Archer Wrote:
WhiteFox Wrote:So if the state tried to do such a thing now, it would be even more frowned upon than it would be back then, because there's relatively more at stake now. There's more people that might be affected and discriminated against based on different religions. I believe it's mostly because of such variety that the separation between church and state rule is a bigger deal now than it was back then.

Given that - I don't think it's unlikely that a group of very religious, right wing Christians could get elected to positions of power, and surrounded themselves with equally right wing Christian advisors and administrators. If that happened, and if they tried to install assorted pro-Christian laws, would enough people be annoyed enough to stop them?


It's already happened, to an extent, and has been for the past 70 years or so. Research an organization called The Family.

Quote:Given that - I don't think it's unlikely that a group of very religious, right wing Christians could get elected to positions of power, and surrounded themselves with equally right wing Christian advisors and administrators. If that happened, and if they tried to install assorted pro-Christian laws, would enough people be annoyed enough to stop them?

I sure hope not. If that happens, I'll be moving to Canada. But people are getting annoyed with the gay marriage issue, and that's generally a pro-christian ideal, so I guess it's working. At the rate it's going, the resistance is slowly crumbling (though it'll take a while before it actually falls in my opinion).

A lot of the Christians that are elected (by the people) are moderates, or were moderates when the elections were going on. The appointed positions are another matter, there you can get extremes.

But given the diversity of the country, a moderate president is generally preferable over an extremist of any wing, because they'll have to be efficient in working with many sides. I don't think there's anything wrong with a religious president, but it's how they ACT on that religion that will either please or irk me. I believe in having a moral base as much as any religious person out there, but I wouldn't try to make laws and amendments based on my personal beliefs ALONE. I'd rather have a logical, economic/social reason for making a law than just a religious one. If the two go hand in hand, well, win-win. If not, well, can't win them all, and maybe it wasn't that important in the first place anyway.

Quote:Obama is (I believe) publically endorsed by some high profile preacher or other,

Naw. Wright shot his mouth off and Obama cut off all ties with him. Not that I blame him, I'd do the same too.
I think one of the main reasons that the judeo/christian religions get this much "hate" in the otherkin community is because otherkin use it as a reason/excuse to act all persecuted.
I don't feel persecuted, I just think that large, organized religiions are annoying. I feel almost the same way about Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam. Although not quite as much since I've never actually bothered to put serious research into any of those, while Christianity is what I was raised with.
*nods* Obviously there's those that serve as exceptions to the rule, but how many times have we all heard how "christianity" is blamed for "why otherkin will never be accepted" or better yet, for why otherkin "are" being persecuted in places?
Mind you, no one ever seems to be able to offer any sources or collaborating evidence of any kind, just claims.

I think the problem is that many otherkin don't want to even try and thus hide behind the "montheism = bad" claims, means they don't have to act like rational persons because they are obviously not to blame for being considered irrational.
Freetha Wrote:*nods* Obviously there's those that serve as exceptions to the rule, but how many times have we all heard how "christianity" is blamed for "why otherkin will never be accepted" or better yet, for why otherkin "are" being persecuted in places?
Mind you, no one ever seems to be able to offer any sources or collaborating evidence of any kind, just claims.

I think the problem is that many otherkin don't want to even try and thus hide behind the "montheism = bad" claims, means they don't have to act like rational persons because they are obviously not to blame for being considered irrational.

What about religion is rational?
flarablaze Wrote:What about religion is rational?
I don't believe that the post said anything about religion being rational, but rather that people should/do not always behave rationally - that disliking a religion for no reason is not rational, but a rather ignorant play akin to some racists. Further to the point, or to respond to the ill placed question - A lot. A lot of religion is rational, one could argue that at it's core, is a pursuit of humanity trying to rationalize what people see/hear/think/feel/taste/smell.
Selcar Wrote:
flarablaze Wrote:What about religion is rational?
I don't believe that the post said anything about religion being rational, but rather that people should/do not always behave rationally - that disliking a religion for no reason is not rational, but a rather ignorant play akin to some racists. Further to the point, or to respond to the ill placed question - A lot. A lot of religion is rational, one could argue that at it's core, is a pursuit of humanity trying to rationalize what people see/hear/think/feel/taste/smell.

Well, sure, that is true. But at the same time how is it truly rational to blindly believe something that you can't prove? (No, I am not saying I am rational.)
flarablaze Wrote:Well, sure, that is true. But at the same time how is it truly rational to blindly believe something that you can't prove? (No, I am not saying I am rational.)
At least as rational as it is to blindly believe what your perceptions tell you (not that I agree that religion and "blind belief" are the same thing, or even related).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Reference URL's