" pursuing something to the level of religion as a group generally leads to elitism, people feeling exclusive and different and "better" alienating others who don't feel the same. Not always, but quite often, so therefore i would still say whether pursuing anything with so much zeal in a group to the point where it could be construed as a religion is a good thing, is debateable." ... and then you lost me. The only thing more dangerous for your side of a debate than interjecting a generalized statement is trying to strengthen it with it's exceptions. *blink* I agree with you 100% that the closed-minded fanaticism that many devouts of many known religions is BAD; it's bad for them in that it closed them off to a lot of thing they might have otherwise learned, and it's bad for the nice folk around them that have to put up with their metaphorical shit. However, I think it's a case, in your mind, of a few bad apples spoiling the whole barrel. Religious fanatics are an extreme sort of "religious person". To be honest, I don't think it's fair to lump ALL religious into the "bad" sack simply because a relatively small percentage of peole have done some amazingly atrocious things in the name of their God/gods. Yes, we had the Crusades in which countless Christians set out to slaughter or convert as many non-Christians as they could get their hands on. Yes, there has been an undeclared Holy War between Jews and Arabs in the middle east damn near for as long as both religious have been around. Does these things alone define their religion? Do they define "religion"? I sure hope not. The dictionaries so far are in agreement with me, and since they're impartial, I'll continue to use their council on this. Look at Buddhism, who's main point of focus is harmony without and within. Many of the Native American beliefs focused around the concept of Nature as a living entity, and much of their religious behavior was an attempt to find greater harmony with their concept of Nature. Hell, even Catholicism and the Muslim religion teach within their main books of reference the concept of "brotherhood of man" without the prejudices that you and I loathe so much; those came later, with human interpretations of the text, for often non-religious reasons (at least with Christianity/Catholicism). The point I'm trying to make, before as now, is that the idea of "religion" is not inherently bad, or wrong, or even slightly negative. What this world's different cultures have done with this concept, however, has danced on both ends of the spectrum, from extremely good and noteworthy, to extremely bad and deplorable. To me, it's not the idea of religion that is bad, it's the idea of being decidely stupid because you've closed your mind in the name of a religion that I find, ahem, less than kosher. :D
"but i think at this point, we're arguing semantics..." Well, yes. If you recall (just scroll up a bit if you don't), my very first comment was to point out a case of symantics to our lovely and talented host. Sometimes, however, symantics can be key, as it is often the fine details that make the pudding what it is. How's THAT for cross-figuratively speaking? :D
"...our opinions are probably not all that far apart." Yup. No doubts there.
"i fear people in large common groups, then tend to have more power and less independent thought, they always make me nervous, whether related to god or something more secular." I'm totally there. For me, though, it has more to do with growing up in the ghetto than having to deal with relgious fanatics trying to shoot me in the name of their deity. The last that I knew, neighborhood gangs weren't well documented as being religious, lightly or otherwise. Which goes back to my point... it aint the religion that'll kill ya, it's the idiot who thinks he's righteous that'll put the hurtin' on ya. One is only related to the other by circumstancial circumstance. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sforzinda
no subject
Date: 2004-08-23 09:18 pm (UTC)... and then you lost me. The only thing more dangerous for your side of a debate than interjecting a generalized statement is trying to strengthen it with it's exceptions. *blink*
I agree with you 100% that the closed-minded fanaticism that many devouts of many known religions is BAD; it's bad for them in that it closed them off to a lot of thing they might have otherwise learned, and it's bad for the nice folk around them that have to put up with their metaphorical shit. However, I think it's a case, in your mind, of a few bad apples spoiling the whole barrel. Religious fanatics are an extreme sort of "religious person". To be honest, I don't think it's fair to lump ALL religious into the "bad" sack simply because a relatively small percentage of peole have done some amazingly atrocious things in the name of their God/gods. Yes, we had the Crusades in which countless Christians set out to slaughter or convert as many non-Christians as they could get their hands on. Yes, there has been an undeclared Holy War between Jews and Arabs in the middle east damn near for as long as both religious have been around. Does these things alone define their religion? Do they define "religion"? I sure hope not. The dictionaries so far are in agreement with me, and since they're impartial, I'll continue to use their council on this.
Look at Buddhism, who's main point of focus is harmony without and within. Many of the Native American beliefs focused around the concept of Nature as a living entity, and much of their religious behavior was an attempt to find greater harmony with their concept of Nature. Hell, even Catholicism and the Muslim religion teach within their main books of reference the concept of "brotherhood of man" without the prejudices that you and I loathe so much; those came later, with human interpretations of the text, for often non-religious reasons (at least with Christianity/Catholicism).
The point I'm trying to make, before as now, is that the idea of "religion" is not inherently bad, or wrong, or even slightly negative. What this world's different cultures have done with this concept, however, has danced on both ends of the spectrum, from extremely good and noteworthy, to extremely bad and deplorable. To me, it's not the idea of religion that is bad, it's the idea of being decidely stupid because you've closed your mind in the name of a religion that I find, ahem, less than kosher. :D
"but i think at this point, we're arguing semantics..."
Well, yes. If you recall (just scroll up a bit if you don't), my very first comment was to point out a case of symantics to our lovely and talented host. Sometimes, however, symantics can be key, as it is often the fine details that make the pudding what it is. How's THAT for cross-figuratively speaking? :D
"...our opinions are probably not all that far apart."
Yup. No doubts there.
"i fear people in large common groups, then tend to have more power and less independent thought, they always make me nervous, whether related to god or something more secular."
I'm totally there. For me, though, it has more to do with growing up in the ghetto than having to deal with relgious fanatics trying to shoot me in the name of their deity. The last that I knew, neighborhood gangs weren't well documented as being religious, lightly or otherwise. Which goes back to my point... it aint the religion that'll kill ya, it's the idiot who thinks he's righteous that'll put the hurtin' on ya. One is only related to the other by circumstancial circumstance. :)
-elf-