religion in goverment? on sixty minutes this sunday there was a segment on the new sex education disseminating from washington. by law prophylactics can only be mentioned as prone to failure. no instruction can be given on their proper use. no discussion of their possible success is allowed. abstinence is the only allowable policy. and abstinence is tied with promises and marriage and...guess what...religion. (religion can be in the program explicitly as long as there is an alternative section that omits the more explicit references.) that disturbs me. that makes me wish ill for a certain type of person.
"belief in God" is not a simple factual proposition. there are many aspects to the position, most of which are non-empirical, non-factual. on the factual level, I don't see how one can take modern science seriously, and get science, and then posit invisible magic super-men. but I understand that some people including scientists will add in "beliefs" in some extra romantic ideas like life-force or something. note that I agree that science is an (alternative) system of religious postulates too. what I specifically mean is scientsts or unitarians or whatever talking about non-empirical supernatural being. but still that's not quite what I mean by religion. I do find it suspect. but these flowery notions are so attenuated in content that they have little meaning beyond a generalized positive attitude or romanticism. I don't mean to dismiss such beliefs or debate about whether they count as relgion or not--rather I just mean that's not what I'm talking about.
what I'm talking about is this, from today's news on drudge:
http://www.thedigitalcourier.com/art...ews/news01.txt
A sign in front of Danieltown Baptist Church, located at 2361 U.S. 221 south reads "The Koran needs to be flushed," and the Rev. Creighton Lovelace, pastor of the church, is not apologizing for the display.
"I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong," said Lovelace.
--------------------------------------------------
I personally would flush them both. people will say this guy is an extremist and does not represent modern religion. but those people are lying to themselves. you can not believe in a particular omnipotent omniscient omnipresent supreme being (note: "omni" ALL EVERY, no exceptions) and then say that other people have their own god too (without attentuating your religion into nothing but an abstract niceness or positiveness). that's just being polite, just agreeing not to speak your mind, and letting them alone in their godless heathen unsaved existence. you can't have a prayer in congress to the god of jesus and not thereby/therein exclude every non-christian. and guess what, people are still allowed to hold prayers in congress without being put in jail, shocking as that may be. for the most part religion has little to no empirical content on a practical level. what happened six thousand and one years ago is not something that will have any practical meaning or import to most of the world, and most of them will never be able to discern any difference directly, empirically. and if your beliefs are more abstract and only posit that after all the physics and biology there is "god" behind it, then by definition it has no empirical meaning. the main significance of these "beliefs" is in their public declaration and affirmation as a sign of inclusion conformity and submission, to this particular church of htis particular "god". all of which basically are values that disgust me, and which I think will necessarily lead to evil in the context of the modern age.
I could say that I don't mean for anyone to take it personally when I allege some defectiveness on someone's part--I mean, I don't know you and I'd probably think you were a fine person if I met you--but that would be disingenuous. the fact is on some level it's unavoidable that you will be a troglogdyte to me and I will be a troglodyte to you. here's how it would come out. a group of people talking about drug use. persons A,B,C etc. A: I use LSD all the time. I really enjoy it. B: I used to use lsd. but then I decided it's not that interesting and then it just wastes the next day or two of my life afterwards. C: I use lsd occasionally, but keep it from interfering with other tihngs. D: I don't think people should use lsd because children will get hold of it and they can't be careful or responsible with it. E: I don't want to try lsd because I tihnk it's dangerous or risky and I don't think anyone can use it responsibly. F: I don't want to use lsd because I don't ever want to be off my game. etc etc etc pro and con. then person G comes out with: I don't use lsd because it's against my religion, becaues it dishonors our lord and saviour jesus christ, because some commandment says not to, because lsd users will go to hell, etc, etc. at this point persons A to F nod politely while walkng backwards to the door, and make a mental note that person G is not someone you can have an intelligent conversation with. that's how I see it. to put it one other way, I don't think I could ever seriously respect someone who prays. reflection, concentration, aspiration, etc, sure. but to pray, to a particular invisible hero? please. and note again, prayer is not essentially an empirical position. every religious person agrees that you can be the most virtuous person the world and never miss a prayer and god may still rain tragedy and misfortune down upon you. they would never purport to prove that prayer works by a study. rather, prayer is a declaration of loyalty obedience and conformity to your sect. even in a nice form, that's proto-fascism. and I'll have none of it.