MYSTICISM: Pre-history v. Today

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

MYSTICISM: Pre-history v. Today

Post #1

Post by 2Dbunk »

2Dbunk wrote (9-17-2015)

I think morality is basic commonsense: you scratch my back -- I'll scratch yours. Love is the epitome of that social contract -- a lover can't do enough for their partner and vice versa. Sure religion has led us to the abstract notion of morality, but what did we do before our religions evolved into what they are today? There was a time when there was no Jerusalem, Mecca, or Rome, but only a cave or a savannah where our ancestors survived by the Law of Reciprocity (scratch my back and I'll do the same for you). Those who failed to abide by this simple law were cast out and did not survive.
Take away Rome, Mecca and Jerusalem of present day religion and you have the savannah of Africa and the caves of Europe of yesteryear. Has anything really changed concerning mankind's worship of the unknowable?

Make no mistake, mankind's appreciation for everything around us has been to offer thanks to some unknowable, absent entity. It is true in past history and pre-history as it is true today -- and the appreciation is a good thing. It is when these unknowable entities encroach on our reality things get more than a little scary. That is why Madison, with the assistance of Jefferson, built into America's Constitution the figurative "Wall" separating Church and State.

Three questions come to mind:

1. Was the "Wall" separating Church and State a good step in curbing the excesses of religious zeal, as well as curbing the government's interference in matters of religion?

2. Should the "Wall" be abandoned because of its alleged detrimental effect on the advancement of spiritual propriety?

3. Is the First Amendment truly an effective umbrella protecting everyone of Faith as well as those of non-Faith?

Does anyone care to comment on the three questions above?
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: MYSTICISM: Pre-history v. Today

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

2Dbunk wrote: 1. Was the "Wall" separating Church and State a good step in curbing the excesses of religious zeal, as well as curbing the government's interference in matters of religion?
I would say that it was more than merely a "good step". I would say that it was a very necessary step to take to make certain that a strongly religious congress could not take over the free democracy and make laws that turn it into a religious theocracy where only their religion is legal.
2Dbunk wrote: 2. Should the "Wall" be abandoned because of its alleged detrimental effect on the advancement of spiritual propriety?
Absolutely not. I would argue that it has no detrimental effect on the advancement of spiritual propriety. If a religion isn't capable of advancing its own spiritual propriety without requiring laws to enforce that propriety, then it needs to reexamine it's own doctrines and ideology to discover just exactly why that might be the case.
2Dbunk wrote: 3. Is the First Amendment truly an effective umbrella protecting everyone of Faith as well as those of non-Faith?
I don't see where the First Amendment promises to "protect" anyone's faith.

Here's the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
All it promises to do is make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It makes no promise of "protecting" anyone's faith.

However, I do feel that there can be some serious problems associated with the part of making no laws against the free exercise of religions. What if your religion requires that you are to kill anyone who is known to participate in homosexual activity? Would it then be required that Congress cannot make a law against murdering homosexuals simply because some religion proclaims that this is to be exercised as part of the religion? :-k

Clearly there are going to be problems here that our forefathers did not original anticipate. If the government is not permitted to make any laws that conflict with practicing religions, then a lot of things that are currently illegal would need to be legalized.

In theory, we could take this to the extreme. For example the Bible command religious people to kill those who work on the Sabbath. Therefore according to the First Amendment Congress shall make no law that prohibits this religious practice. And so based on the First Amendment a "Christian" (using the Bible as religious support) could go out on Sundays with a machine gun and mow down anyone he or she sees who is officially working on the Sabbath. Supposedly a Jew could do the same thing on Saturdays.

According to the first amendment Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting this religious practice. Obviously that is not going to work. Therefore we already necessarily need to ignore the First Amendment, at least in the part where it says that Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

We can't continue to keep these old amendments as if they are immutable and carved in stone. We need to update them based on higher intellectual analysis. We can't allow religion to be used as an excuse to keep Congress from making laws that might coincidentally conflict with ancient immoral dogmas.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Re: MYSTICISM: Pre-history v. Today

Post #3

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]


2Dbunk wrote:

3. Is the First Amendment truly an effective umbrella protecting everyone of Faith as well as those of non-Faith?

I don't see where the First Amendment promises to "protect" anyone's faith.

Here's the first amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

All it promises to do is make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It makes no promise of "protecting" anyone's faith.


Since the First Amendment fails to recognize any religion, and all Civil laws are in place, protection is there nevertheless. It is a protection by default, defacto or whatever you want to call it. No religion can rise to power, we are all subject to the secular laws of the land, thus ensuring across the board protection in matters of conscience!
However, I do feel that there can be some serious problems associated with the part of making no laws against the free exercise of religions. What if your religion requires that you are to kill anyone who is known to participate in homosexual activity? Would it then be required that Congress cannot make a law against murdering homosexuals simply because some religion proclaims that this is to be exercised as part of the religion? Think
Fine lines of distinction come to the courts often. But for rare exceptions, like Hobby Lobby for instance, secular law has been proven superior to religious dictates. The recent Supreme Court 5 - 3 decision squashing the anti-abortion Texas law is a case in point. It was close I grant you, but it forces two thirds of the states to revisit their similar draconian womens rights laws.
Clearly there are going to be problems here that our forefathers did not original anticipate. If the government is not permitted to make any laws that conflict with practicing religions, then a lot of things that are currently illegal would need to be legalized.
Paint me the color of Pollyanna, but I think your fears are without foundation. The government has acted in extreme religious activities: Waco Texas, FLDS Warren Jeffs, the deaths of the Nixon Children in Altoona PA, and to a lesser extent, Ruby Ridge in Idaho.
In theory, we could take this to the extreme. For example the Bible command religious people to kill those who work on the Sabbath. Therefore according to the First Amendment Congress shall make no law that prohibits this religious practice. And so based on the First Amendment a "Christian" (using the Bible as religious support) could go out on Sundays with a machine gun and mow down anyone he or she sees who is officially working on the Sabbath. Supposedly a Jew could do the same thing on Saturdays.
And that may happen some day -- but it hasn't yet, except in isolated incidents such as the Altoona incident (which was properly prosecuted). Why? These are nonsensical notions that an enlightened or educated populace clearly understands to be contrary to our Civil Law. Secular law has historically overridden religious dictates because fanatical religious law has no standing in our country.
According to the first amendment Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting this religious practice. Obviously that is not going to work. Therefore we already necessarily need to ignore the First Amendment, at least in the part where it says that Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There is no guarantee that the attitude of the Courts could become more conservative, becoming more sympathetic to the dictates of religious practices. But I think your fears are unfounded for the moment. The fact that we are having this discussion is indicative of the strength of the First Amendment.
We can't continue to keep these old amendments as if they are immutable and carved in stone. We need to update them based on higher intellectual analysis. We can't allow religion to be used as an excuse to keep Congress from making laws that might coincidentally conflict with ancient immoral dogmas.
I agree with you that the Bill of Rights amendments are much too abbreviated. Look at the Second Amendment and see how it is so broadly or narrowly interpreted. Guns in every closet? Maybe, but more likely meant to be in the hands of State sanctioned militia. Of course we know what the NRA is doing: taking advantage of the lack of more nuanced clarification.

I would like to see the First Amendment changed from ". . . Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion." to "Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of conscience." thereby completely recognizing legitimacy of Atheism.
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: MYSTICISM: Pre-history v. Today

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

2Dbunk wrote: There is no guarantee that the attitude of the Courts could become more conservative, becoming more sympathetic to the dictates of religious practices. But I think your fears are unfounded for the moment. The fact that we are having this discussion is indicative of the strength of the First Amendment.
A key phrase in you quote above is "for the moment".

Yes, I agree, in fact I have no fears "for the moment". My fears are for the future, which aren't even personal fears since I'm fairly old and have no family so I'll be leaving this world fairly soon anyway and not be leaving anyone behind. :D

Still, I think it would be very sad to see the USA deteriorate into a religious theocracy. Could that happen? Yes I believe it most certainly is possible. Hopefully not probable. But if a bunch of like-minded religious fanatic were to gain control of the White House, and Congress, they could actually use the First Amendment to enforce their theocracy onto the nation.

How so? Well, religious fanatics (and even religious moderates) are already preaching on radio stations encouraging their followers to support RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. And what they consider to be religious rights is the right to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, etc.

So if these types of religious fanatics (or even moderates) were to gain control of the White House and Congress, they could pass laws to support their right to practice their "Religious Beliefs" which could even include teaching their religious doctrine in public schools a "Religious Right".

I listen to local religious stations once in a while and you might be surprised what they are pushing for.

Hopefully these kinds of people will never gain control of the White House and Congress. But the fact is that it's possible that they could.

That's all I'm saying. Get the wrong people in control of the White House and Congress and they will interpret the First Amendment to be protecting their rights to practice their religion openly, even in their jobs, including the job of holding public office.

This is precisely what they are saying on these religion radio stations. They want to put their God "back" into Government because from their perspective the USA was founded on Christian principles to begin with (as false as that may be) they still believe it.
2Dbunk wrote: I would like to see the First Amendment changed from ". . . Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion." to "Congress can make no laws that prohibit the free exercise of conscience." thereby completely recognizing legitimacy of Atheism.
That could be just as dangerous or even more so.

Free to exercise your conscience? What exactly would that mean?

Could you kill your neighbor because your conscience told you to?

I have no clue what "free exercise of conscience" even means.

I think they should do away with any words like "practice" or "exercise" religion or conscience.

Instead they should just say that you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like as long as you obey the laws of the land, and just leave it at that.

To say that people are free to "practice" religion is already problematic. That implies that they should be able to do whatever their religion says they should do. Like I say, if your religion tells you to kill people for certain sins, should you then be free to "practice" that religion?

I don't think so. And fortunately to date, we haven't been allowing people to "practice" religion when it violates the law. But one could argue that the First Amendment actually says that Congress shall make NO LAW that prohibits the "practice" of religion. From my vantage point, that a seriously troublesome amendment. If a religion tells people to kill people for certain sins, then technically this First Amendment proclaims that Congress cannot make any laws against that practice.

How is that not problematic? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #5

Post by 2Dbunk »

It is interesting that no theologically inclined individuals have found the OP questions
provocative enough to answer. So I will insert my thoughts as to how a theist might answer:
Three questions come to mind:

1. Was the "Wall" separating Church and State a good step in curbing the excesses of religious zeal, as well as curbing the government's interference in matters of religion?
According to the secularist magazine "Church & State" Jefferson's "wall" has provided the religious communities with prodigious opportunity for free expression. Religion in America knows virtually no bounds. As a matter, religionists are testing those bounds daily.
2. Should the "Wall" be abandoned because of its alleged detrimental effect on the advancement of spiritual propriety?
Theists would have it that they are still being discriminated against. Persecution is their bag, and they know how to capitalize on that imagined scepter. Take away the fact that Christians in America vastly outnumber atheists, we are still the imagined threat to their existence. "That wall is only in place to protect religion from the government" too many religionists claim.
3. Is the First Amendment truly an effective umbrella protecting everyone of Faith as well as those of non-Faith?
Again "Church & State" magazine would answer that it has been very effective in barring any one religion from becoming our "national ' religion. Religionists may disagree, saying that "no government can abrogate what God has ordained."
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

Post Reply