Why can't all the different religions and religions people just let people live and let live?

If you want to know about my religion, just ask and I'll tell you.

By the same token, if I want to know about yours, I'll ask you.

Atheists are just as bad as the major religions when it comes to pushing their religious believes on you.

Did you hear that caller?

It just bugged the crap out of me, and I could tell it bugged the crap out of Randi as well.

The Faith-based initiatives are subsidized religion. Therefore, unconstitutional. At least, that’s my argument in a nutshell.

-- GP

====

That's fine... I pretty much agree with you.

My point is...

just like what happened with that other caller.

If you're (not you specifically, greenpagan, you in general) an atheist, that's fine. Don't insult me or other people of faith for our believes.

That caller that just called religions a cult is a prime example...

One person becomes prejudiced against another over something neither understands and God laughs "After all, you don't want any of "those" people sharing an imaginary heaven with you."

But not really

That's if you take the term "cult" as a pejorative i.e. as in definition #3 below. There are a variety of meanings for "cult" that can be used in a multitude of contexts.

I'm not an unbeliever but I took no offense to the caller's "insult". We're getting a little too overly-sensitive in this country and pretty soon nobody is going to say anything. (Maybe that will be a blessing but then people like Randi might be out of a job...and we can just listen to the dead air...)

====

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

====

Best regards

-- GP

====

I must disagree, Clay. Atheists don't tell you you're going to hell if you don't believe what they believe (or don't.)

Atheists don't tell you "activist elitist" judges in California are doing wrong by upholding the Constitution of the State of California in allowing gays to marry.

Atheists don't start Q & A threads to put a warm and fuzzy spin on their beliefs, then spew intolerant hatred elsewhere.

In context I think the caller was using it as a pejorative.

Randi did a good job of turning it around though.

Unsonstitutional and very well could be struck down by Obama's Supreme Court picks.

I think Barack should concentrate/focus on his Office of Poverty. That's what the religions are supposed to be doing - charity, or solving the reasons FOR poverty.

"They" just call people stupid and insult them by saying they're in a cult.

Why can't people just let other people have their believes (or non-believes)?

You believe this... I believe in that... this does not make one of us better/smarter than the other... just different.

Why can't that be all it is??

It is ironic that I should hold more opinions with atheists and agnostics than religious people. I am a spiritual being who considers himself as a Christian. No religious faith should require faith without reason, or intellectual thought. If there is a maker, this person would be the most intelligent being possible. Why would this being require everyone be ignorant, it does not make sense. This being would also require unconditional love to give back the same. He or she would also prove to the beings of its creation that he or she has the best idea for eternity. The only way this could possibly happen is a free for all scenario, where the existence is linear, also an open mind would be required to achieve the power of discernment. This is a simple premise, with an open mind, the scientific extrapolation of inherent physical laws, and an understanding of mother nature.

To blatantly tell people this is the way it is, without allowing the freedom to choose, is just another example of controlling power.

If our maker wanted a bunch of automatons, freedom of choice would not be an issue. So why do so many religious zealots push their way, the answer should be very easy to figure out. To find out onces motives one only needs to look at their actions.

'Cause we're all human, and most people just have to mess in other people's sh*t.

Yeah... that's true

it just bugs me...

Let's just all let each other have whatever faith/religious believes/non-believes we do and be respectful of that.

Don't call each other names because we believe differently.

Although I wasn't able to hear all of the call I thought Randi was spot on. For the first time I totally agreed with her. She earned a good mark in my book for what she said.

The caller sounded (from what I heard) a lot like one of the posters on the old board before it went down. She (I assume mainly by her name from the old board) would bash anyone that believed in Christ or God. Calling it childish or superstitious to believe in one or the other.

So what if I believe and you don't.

Just as bad? I don't think so. No atheist has ever come to my door with a bunch of random pamphlets (cool pictures though) or some obviously made up 19th century Bible supplement and tried to save my soul. I know of no atheist who has stood outside a gay pride function and told people that they needed to stop being gay and that those who weren't atheists were immoral and dirty. Atheists don't organize missionary expeditions to "save" the heathen overseas.

I am an atheist. I sometimes talk to religious people about their "faith" but I have no interest in trying to talk them out of it. They can believe what they like. I'm only interested in keeping religion and government as far apart as possible and keeping religious influence on my life to a minimum.

I didn't hear the conversation Randi had with the atheist caller. But it sounds like in attempting to make his point he didn't give superstition the respect and deference that belivers expect. Bad move.

<ding-dong>

--door opening--

"Yes?"
"Jehova's Witnesses"...

"Well, witness this."

-door slamming--

Neither did you... "superstition"

That's the kind of RUDENESS that drives me up the wall.

Let me have my faith and/or religion and I let you have yours.

That's the way it should be!

Wasn't there an atheist group that sued the city of LA to try to get them to take the church off the seal of the city? Um, hello? The city of LA started as a mission!

And in the gay pride parade this weekend there were no less than 10 Christian churches marching in the parade in-support of gay rights.

So this whole us vs them thing is so stupid.

Every one's got bad crap on each side... and it bothers me when Christians insult atheists just as it does when atheists insult Christians.

I don't understand the need to insult everyone's believes!

Well apparently Randi is a believer, and was put off by someone trying to call any religion a cult. And a statement like you just made would (IMO) have gotten her just as riled. (Calling it a superstition)

I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people and I really don't care. ORGANIZED religion IS a CULT! Spirituality and faith are NOT. Randi got all bent out of shape and pissed off because someone hit a nerve with her regarding religion and just as many people who feel their beliefs are being attacked, she attacked back. Her own insecurity caused her to become intolerant and take someone who has the belief that all organized religions are a cult and make him pay for speaking his mind about it.

Go on, lash out at me, I'm not an Atheist, I'm not Christian, I do not belong to any organization which has requirements (and often times dues in the form of tithing) for membership based on faith...that's just too cultish for me.

I find it funny how many people who are intolerant of other "cults" refuse to see their own involvement in a cult of their own.

Okay, I apologize for the S word. That was not warranted in this context. I knew I shouldn't have used it. Lost my head.

As for LA, it may have been founded as a mission but it isn't one anymore.

I think religion is stupid. Personal belief. No big deal. If you want to spend your time worshipping some sky god...go ahead...just leave me the hell alone and don't infuse it in American politics. I believe firmly in the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. The thing about Christians and Muslims is that it's in their faith to try to convert the infidels. Since I am a non-believer...I have all these "wonderful people" trying to save my soul. No thanks.

Maybe next time someone tries to convert me...I'll try to convert them to the book of green eggs and ham or something like that.

I know. Dangerous to speak your mind sometimes. Personally, I prefer to know up front where a person is coming even if I might not like it rather than have them try to sugar coat it.

But I did apologize for "superstition". Even though that's what i think it is. No need to be inflamatory among friends.

Accepted.

There really is no need to insult friends for their religious believes - NO ONE has the same believes.

Why can't we all just let it go without calling people (or their believes) names?

IMO, religions are wack. I was a Catholic, but I gave it up for lent in 1985 and never went back.

I agree with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. But then, considering my past-life memories and the knowledge that I will belong to Randi in our next lives, I have little choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwn-tQzGMo

Ha, gave up being Catholic for Lent. That's just so precious.

I take this sentiment as an admission that you know you can't defend your beliefs. You'll allow others to believe nonsense so that you may use your acceptance as a shield against any "attacks" on your own beliefs.

The caller was agreeing with Randi. He wanted to talk about where to draw the line as far as religions go and Randi, like most people I've listened and talked to, draws the line at people who practice in a manner that she has deemed acceptable. Everyone else is an "extremist" "radical" "fundamentalist" who practices their religion wrong. If you're going to accept the god theory but not make judgments regarding which religion(s) are correct, how are you going to tell someone they are practicing incorrectly? If god were real, why is it that it could ONLY be a loving, happy god who only condones loving, happy activities?

Can someone explain to me how dancing with poisonous snakes, animal sacrifice and marrying a 12 year old are crazier than drinking grape juice as christ blood, forbidding contraception and hating homosexuals?

Any line drawn between cult and religion is completely arbitrary.

It all depends on who holds the pen.

You have to go with the word "cult" as a pejorative. The word is rampantly pejorative now - an epidemic.

It IS true, that sociologists or the science of such subjects regard cult technically as the beginnings of a newly formed religion. They have even considered doing away with using the word and using another term to describe the beginnings of new sects because it has taken on such a nasty pejorative meaning.

It's really because religion has been so twisted by man since forever - infinity (for me).

The only thing salvageable in my mind are the good things the various figureheads such as Jesus, Siddhartha, or Muhammad initially accomplished. It all went downhill from there, but I think their deeds still survive with real believers. For instance, I adore what Jesus did with his life, and his acts and words still instruct me.

Now, today, we seem to have an abundance of nuts and fruitcakes, such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, those spaceship people who all committed suicide in one setting in Calif., or the San Angelo sect of the Mormon Church - all mentally ill, extremely devious cults.

Now people have transferred the word cult to not only everyday innocuous religions, but into politics. The meaning of the word is set in stone now. And yes, George Bush and his people worship oil. And yes I think it's very plausible to call it a cult.

My wish is that we should not use this word as a weapon against well-meaning religious people - like for example the nice caller today who called herself Lutheran.

Finally, love does exist. And God is love. And God is us. It is all inside us, not outside, or up above in the sky. We all should be searching for that element within ourselves everyday.

Oh, and the earth is humming now, btw. (don't know what that means exactly - good? bad? both?)

Haven't been following this thread but great post Eggy...and informative too!

I just posted on Obama cult word attacks from another poster...hmmm

And I accept the apology along with (I guess the others). You may think it is a superstition, and you are welcome to that thinking...I just believe it is wrong to call what someone believes in (even if you think it is) a superstition. It just gets people riled up.

At least you didn't equate it with the PSM or the easter bunny (in a way you did but not in those words and thank you for that). But I know you are a good guy(gal???), just don't rag on everyone that believes in God, Jesus, or Muhammand. As far as the true cults out there have at it.

Definition of "true cults", please. Wait, let me guess. A group who's views you find objectionable. You're not judging people, are you?

The hypocrisy makes my head want to explode.

This is a very diffi-cult (small joke) call to make. Especially when the name-calling (such as sinner, abomination, evil, pervert, etc. when applied to gays) is generated by people who otherwise call themselves religious. I think you will find many gays like myself pushing back against organized religion because we have been pushed up against the wall for so long.

When we push back, all of a sudden we're wrong and supposed to be the tolerant ones. Bullcrap. I heard that from the haters who tried to disrupt the Long Beach Pride parade this year: When someone flipped them the bird, they'd wail: "that's not very tolerant."

Alcoholics Anonymous has also been called a cult, but only by those who don't need it, or don't understand it. Same thing for religion.

Just a thought here.... While your response to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door by "slamming" it is certainly your choice just remember, Randi herself has said that Christian faith requires one to evangelize (this is true) and this is what JW's (and some others) do. You may not like it or agree with it but these folks are all about "declaring the good news of the Kingdom" to the best of their understanding and have fought hard and long over the years in courts across the land for the freedom to do it. Rather than slamming the door in their face why not at least say politely "thanks, but I'm not interested". Remember, do to others as you would have them do to you.

Jim Jones for one example

My question to you is.....the people that have religious views on this board have they called you evil, pervert, or sinner because of your being gay. I know I haven't and I do not believe anyone else has.

I think there's this assumption is that the Obama version of faith based initiatives will be this carbon copy of Bush's. I'm not reading that in his statements. There are a significant number of liberal/progressive denominations that would benefit from this money. I can think of about five churches in West Hollywood that cater specifically to the LBGT community that I'd like to see have some funding for their addiction programs, AIDS testing, etc, youth in trouble, etc. I'm willing to have an open mind on the matter as long as it is legal, equitable and constitutional and not moving the country towards some theocracy.

To quote the late great George Carlin...." I am a recovering Catholic....I left the church when I reached the age of reason"......For me that was around the age of 8.

I don't see how giving tax money to religious organizations can be constitutional no matter how much good they are doing. I don't think it's right. Plus, as I said earlier religious organizations have long used good works as a cover for proselytizing and pushing political agendas. The Catholics do some good stuff. So do the Mormons even. But I don't want my taxes going to support either organization.

I'm not religious at all. Total atheist. I think the issue is not to dismiss the Religion or Philosophy, but the more reasonable notion that these belief systems are perverted into hate systems or cults of hate/fear by evil communities or leaders.

If people was disrupting the Pride parade, then the community has a right to stand up and make their voices heard. It's stupid, 20th Century, liberal Political Correctness that uses the word "tolerant". Those kinds of behaviors are threats and we have a right to defend ourselves as a community. Sorry, I don't want to be "tolerated". Nor accepted. If someone can't accept me, that's their problem. Not mine.

But when you discuss the LBGT community, what about the many members who seek out the Metropolitan churches and other non-denominational, progressive/liberal churches? There's a lot of religious folks in the LGBT community. And those churches do a lot of good for our community.

I'm sure that there are Catholics on this board. I don't think they have ever called me names, but their Church has. "Disordered" comes to mind. And it definitely has a political agenda and its leaders here on earth are not shy about meddling in political affairs. Among other things it has been very vocal in its belief that I should be a second class citizen. It's the institution I'm attacking. And those who support its policies and make apologies for its views.

I'm Catholic but it doesn't mean that I personally believe everything the church teaches. Actually, I disagree with many of their social positions but I understand the context of it - a hierarchy of old men across the ocean who have called all the shots since the beginning of time (that's an exaggeration of course - since the rules were created - and they were created by religious men with political interests). The Catholic church has a lot of catching up to do, and I'm not holding my breath. I'm not apologizing for its views. Maybe I'm a bad Catholic! Although - I will say that the majority of Catholics I know do not agree with the "disordered" adjective used to describe gays and many of them are more liberal than some of my other "christian" friends. I am proud to be a cafeteria Catholic.

It's important to keep an open mind and be a free thinker. Period.

One of my best friends is an atheist who is extremely intolerant of anyone who believes in God. He is downright hostile if he even hears the word "God" and thinks I'm a less intelligent person for having a belief in a higher power. It's his hang-up, not mine. I have long since learned to avoid all spiritual or religious topics.

Intolerance comes in all forms.

There is one fact, once we are dead, someone is going to say I Told U SOOOOO

I have a question for you guys, have you ever met someone that has been in the presence of God?

This is the problem I have. You and I would probably get along just fine even when disagreeing about religion. On the other hand I'd probably find your extreme atheist friend a little hard to take after a while even though I'd probably agree with 90% of his views.

But I assume you provide some sort of financial support to this institution that you in many ways disagree with and which you doubt will improve any time soon. It's not like the IRS where you have no option but to pay up even though you have profound disagreements about how the money is used. And your presence at mass in effect validates whatever is coming down from the pulpit.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or attacking here. Been quite a bit of that already on this thread. But do you see where I'm coming from? This is the thing I have a hard time resolving when it comes to "good" (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) Christians who belong to "bad" churches.

Yeah, I was in the presence of god a lot for about a month or so until I found out what a jerk he was and dumped him. Then I went back to being an atheist. But he was one hot god, I'll give him that

Actually, that was a very small joke.


Not directly, no. But they have referred to those like me as such. Tyo mentions this as well.



Dan, you are quite correct. And I stand thus. And I have removed the wild hare. Sorry if I was strident and obtuse, all.

I think we need to revisit what this caller actually was trying to say as it seems to have been lost in this thread. The caller told Randi that "religions are just 'successful cults'" not that all religion is a cult (although some might see what he said to mean the same thing).

A good example of what he was referring to is Christianity. Back in Jesus' day the Romans believed Christianity to be a cult and tried to stamp it out. Over the centuries Christianity became more popular and powerful (see Church of Rome) and time blurred the negative aspects and practices that were associated with many who proclaimed to be "Christian" (see Emperor Constantine). Christendom evolved into the large, powerful and diverse force that it is today. But like it or not, some see this religion as a cult at its base; one that worships a man (Jesus) and believes him to be Divine (God or god). In their book that spells c-u-l-t. This leads us to the next point the caller was trying to make...

The caller spoke about the possibility of many, many years in the future someone like David Koresh (of Branch Davidian, Waco, Texas fame) becoming the basis for a large respected religion. Time would have blurred the truth of who this man was and what he did leaving only cleansed "divine" accounts of his works and teachings and leaving out the part about it being a cult in the 20th century. It is an interesting point of view and one I thought Randi missed the meat of. Instead she reacted rather than intelligently responded to it.

HI! heard the call and had to go in to work, but I wanted to respond. Being Wiccan for many years now, one of my teachers gave us the Bonewits' Cult Danger evaluation frame: http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html to help us choose a group to work with that wasnt a "cult" and therefore a danger.. I find the scale very interesting... I disagreed with Randi's reaction, and as aforestated, the caller hit a nerve... I think if you take a look at early Christianity, Islam, etc.. it could fit the "definition" of a cult by some of these standards (stated in the scale) ... I think it depends on the level and extremity of the beliefs. I would agree that certain denominations within a religion could be construed as a "cult" but these tend to be outside the mainstream belief. I am also of the thought that a religion could begin as a "cult" (by definition) but over time to perpetuate itself and keep believers, it would have to mellow its tactics to become more mainstream. Yes, I believe religion can be a cult but the defining line is very grey at best, and subject to individual interpretation....

People have been having mystical experiences for thousands of years.

What they are proof of - no one is really sure.

The one thing the mystics all seem to concur on is, the Reality they experienced transcended most of what has been written about it in sacred texts and creeds. Mostly, it appears to transcend language.

I tried to find Him on the Christian Cross, but He was not there; I went to the Temple of the Hindus and to the pagodas, but I could not find a trace of Him anywhere. I searched on the mountains and in the valley and across the deserts, but neither in the heights nor in the depths was I able to find Him. I went to the Kaaba in Mecca, but He was not there either. I questioned the scholars and the philosophers but He was beyond their understanding. I then looked into my heart and it was there where He dwelled that I saw Him; He is no where else to be found, for words are useless (specially sentences) and life defies definition.

-- Jalal Uddin Rumi.



Given that It (the experience) cannot be described in words, perhaps all attempts to do so up until this point, have been pointless.