NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: if this turns into a flame war, I want the mods to close it.

Now, there are many reasons why people are and aren't religious.

What I'd like to know is...why?

Why are you for religion, and if you are, why is religion so great? Please keep this as non-political as you can. I just want pure beliefs.

For the other guys - I think religion sucks. What's your take on it? Why do you hate it?

Ok...main rule: do NOT insult the people who you don't agree with.

Now then, since I have no religion, I fall into the second group.

I don't like religion because it's restrictive.

It's like a legal cult/sorority/fraternity. There are such hoops you have to go through to join/convert. There are so many arcane rules that don't apply to moder life it's not funny. These ulta-conservative and even "liberal" religions seem very...puritan.

And the elitists in these religions look down upon those they consider inferior. There is a culture of superiority that seems to make one religion better than another. I mean, who many times have we gone to war over religion? Too many...

I dont like religion because most likely, none of them are true.

I dont like religion because most likely, none of them are true.
That and they all seem to claim that they are the one true religion that leads to paradise/God. And yet, these two things are in the same, the end. It's so confusing... :D Plus of course, the doctrine for religion is so many centuries old, that much of the original context has been lost in the eternal void of time.

I don't have a problem with a religion. I have mine and mine is logical to me. Others have theres and that is what works for them. However, I think it is really something one should keep to themselves and not bring up unless brought up. One thing that needs to happen is we need to have respect for other religions as no one can really know which religion is correct.

I don't have a problem with a religion. I have mine and mine is logical to me. Others have theres and that is what works for them. However, I think it is really something one should keep to themselves and not bring up unless brought up. One thing that needs to happen is we need to have respect for other religions as no one can really know which religion is correct.
Now you're the kind of religious person I don't mind. You keep it to yourself, and I keep mine to myself. That's very smart.

I'm a spiritual Buddhist, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having some beliefs that can't quite be proven. However, I have a problem with those that think their religion is superior to other's beliefs.

I think it's cocky to think you're "right" about god. I always put it, "in my best estimation" or "my experiences have lead me to believe [insert belief here], but I know that other people might have have experiences that have brought them to another conclusion."

For example, I believe in karma because there have been too many times in my life that I believe I have seen karma work. I am not going to say that I know how karma works 100%; but in my best estimation, I believe I have seen karma work in some situations because of the outcomes of those situations. However, I realize some people may see something and call those outcomes something else or percieve the events in a different manner. You can't prove karma, but I am happy to have a word to describe the phenomenon I have witnessed and will continue to believe in karma until my experiences lead me to believe something else.

I think religion is fine as long as people leave room to be open-minded and for change.

Clearly, all of them are made up. That in itself is not such a bad thing, I mean star wars is also made up. Unfortunately, unlike the fanatical followers of star wars - mostly people who dress up in strange costumes and gather a Marriot Convention centers pretending to be Mace Windu - fanatical followers of religion have the unfortunate habit of running around setting fire to things and blowing shit up.

Now, if that was the end of it, and they kept it "in house" so to speak, I could put up with it, but they have the unfortunate habit of dragging the rest of us into it. And it's not like we don't have enough problems already, what with the radical leftists &c.

So all in all, I have to say it's a bad thing.

Spirituality is one thing--that tends to lead to higher awareness, enlightenment, and the general good things that faith can provide.

Organized religions lead to segregation, control mechanisms for the populace, and war.

So, definitely no on religion.

Oh god no! I hate it! :rolleyes: :p

I despise organized religion - it's all about gaining and maintaining power over the ignorant masses. Of course, the ignorant masses annoy the hell out of me just for being so, well, ignorant as to fall for such an obvious ploy!

Now, there are many reasons why people are and aren't religious.

What I'd like to know is...why?

I've grown up influenced by my rather religious American dad that forced me to go to Sunday school and my devout atheist German mom that doesn't like religion much.
I'm not religious per se. I believe that there might be something out there, because there's quite a bunch of coincedences that make life on earth improbable, speaking for a Greater Being. I grew up with a protestant background.
I personally refuse to join a church and to attend services because my main value is tolerance of others (except for intolerance... can't stand that in any form). By joining the protestant church (or any other) and embracing its teachings, I feel I would make a statement that Protestantism is the only way and everyone else is wrong. I've seen plenty of nice people that speak about others in a very superior tone because they don't share their religion. To me, treating other people right is a more important way to measure someone than which religion they belong to, and I'm loathe to join any organization that states that their God does it otherwise.

I also believe there might be something bigger than us in this universe. But I don't believe there is any kind of 'God' like any of the greater religions describe. Why not? Think about it: a god created the entire universe, all living beings, including the human race. And we must worship this god and/or his prophets, because else we won't go to heaven. So actually, that god just created all of existance, just so it's sentinent beings could worship him? Dunno, but I really wouldn't want to worship that kind of god.
Then again, I don't mind other people who do want to be religious. i just hate it when they try to 'convert' me

I'm a Catholic convert. When I was an atheist, I disliked religion for the simple reason that I viewed it as incorrect and leading people astray - I disliked the philosophy, not the practise.

And the reason that religion's beliefs are "not modern" is because they're not supposed to change. You shouldn't change what's correct.

(perceived) moral inconsistency
Many religions provide an ethical/moral system which seems internally inconsistent. "God" can decree one should do one thing in case A, and the opposite in case B without explaining the motivation behind this contradiction. This promotes illogical thought and doublethink amongst the religions followers, as well as providing a problem when one is confronted by a case C for which there is no "will of God" known.

inflexibility/ dogmatic character
Many religions cannot adequately handle things that go against their doctrine. If one aspect would be proven wrong, the whole could collapse - which results in the followers attempting to destroy/ignore doctrine-unfriendly knowledge instead of adapting the doctrine. Attempting to make the facts fit the description, instead of describing the facts in other words.

I recently turned to agnosticism basically because i think it's impossible to prove/disprove the idea of a god and while most religions have some nice morals in them, they also have a lot of shit advice kicking about in the holy books. It's more important to act in accordance with what you percieve on earth than what you perceive to exist supernaturally

I despise organized religion - it's all about gaining and maintaining power over the ignorant masses. Of course, the ignorant masses annoy the hell out of me just for being so, well, ignorant as to fall for such an obvious ploy!

It seems as though you share the general consensus around here, that organized religion is a shame and is in fact a ‘bad’ thing for society, that only ignorant idiots are members thereof. Suggesting that everybody with two-cents of a brain should be too ashamed to be associated with any such group…

Who then will champion the poor of society? Who will defend the weak and the infirm? Is there another voice that they have in the societies around the world, in any society, that allows the weak to voices their concerns to the powerful, the rich and the strong? The weak individuals would be passed by on the streets, ignored by the powerful as they perform the busy-ness of living, ignoring them completely. But organized religion give these desperate people a way or form, hospitals, orphanages, care for the elderly, food shelves, holiday help for the children of the poor etc., etc., etc.

These people, the ones you claim are ignorant for joining organized religions, are in fact only joining together with other like minded individuals to form a more powerful voice in the societies they live in. They might be entirely ignored and powerless as individuals, but together, unionized, they may be formidable. And if they get enough of them to join together, to represent the poor and weak in mass, they may become powerful enough from time to time to form public policy.

So unless you are anti-union and pro-oppressive government and big business and rich and powerful, why would you be against organized religion? It might be the only place left that these people can find any support whatsoever to voice their public opinion.

Who then will champion the poor of society? Who will defend the weak and the infirm? Is there another voice that they have in the societies around the world, in any society, that allows the weak to voices their concerns to the powerful, the rich and the strong?

Eeeeehmm.. why do you think that there can be no compassion or social security without religion?

Non religious myself and dislike the “organized” portion of religion

Something about a large organization that espouses not only information about a deity but also is in charge of interpreting how that deity says that the believers should live their life’s with no need to verify any of its statements, has no real checks and balances, has no need to verify its viewpoint ( a single statement of “have more faith” is usually enough) and uses the threat of eternal damnation if you stray from their interpretation, and essentially is only answerable (in their view) to a deity that does not seem to like to talk back while we are alive .
Just sets me ill at ease

I have been on the receiving end of when big organizations (catholic) decide to protect themselves at the cost of you, its not a pleasant experience (specially for the child I was) I seen the beast that the church has a potential on becoming again. I don’t want to have to rely on their good will again, they let me down the last time.

Eeeeehmm.. why do you think that there can be no compassion or social security without religion?

You're not really going to make me start listing all the countries that don't have effective governments are you? And if the religous institutions in strong countries weren't donating money to share with their sister institutions in the countries with weak governments or no social policies to speak of, many of these people would have no help or voice whatsoever...

You're not really going to make me start listing all the countries that don't have effective governments are you? And if the religous institutions in strong countries weren't donating money to share with their sister institutions in the countries with weak governments or no social policies to speak of, many of these people would have no help or voice whatsoever...
Just because they fulfill SOME of the role now(you know great organizations such as the read cross) does not mean that service would be absent in religions absence.

Just because they fulfill SOME of the role now(you know great organizations such as the read cross) does not mean that service would be absent in religions absence.

Does anyone want to look up how many times larger the religous charities are than all of the UN Humanitrian combined is? How about, not just empergency stuff, but every single day human sevice maintenance... Like food and medicine and education for children in poor countries.

Does anyone want to look up how many times larger the religous charities are than all of the UN Humanitrian combined is? How about, not just empergency stuff, but every single day human sevice maintenance... Like food and medicine and education for children in poor countries.
Which does not really matter (in reference to my statement) just because religion does a lot of work now does not mean if it did not exist that some other organization would not pick up the slack
No amount of quoting about what they do now would prove that others would not contribute in their absence

You're not really going to make me start listing all the countries that don't have effective governments are you? And if the religous institutions in strong countries weren't donating money to share with their sister institutions in the countries with weak governments or no social policies to speak of, many of these people would have no help or voice whatsoever...
Yes, there is that sad point. Many of these "religious" or theocratic nations fail to often provide the social welfare support that the religion preaches and often mandates. For one, like Islam, one of the 'pillars' is charity, which is one should and ought to give to the less fortunate if they have the means.

Individually, these people, like Christians (including every freakin' demonination), Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc, all have some form of charity element to their religion. These people give to charity because it's not only mandated but because they feel it is the right thing to do, and that matters.

Yes, there are various places of worship that help the needy in their community, but, many times the government comes up dry, even though they proclaim to be at the centre of that nation's religion.

This is another reason why I don't like religion.

A lot of the mass-organised religions expect a form of charity, but often it doesn't get back to the people. The nations were the people get welfare and social assistance are mostly in the non-theocratic nations.

Although i dont mind people who are quietly and sensibly religous, fanatics and extremists really piss me off. The only things worth dying for are honour, power and the protection of others. Many things are worth killing for, but on neither list is there religion. I find it, quite frankly, pathetic to put your life in the hands of a series of fictional writings that babble on about mysterious gods etc that would unveil themselves on a daily basis back then, but now they condemn us and are waved around as an excuse to invade people.

Of all the mainstream religions, i respect Buddhism the most, as there is nothing within it that could be proven wrong like a god. It is the most sensible, logical and straightforward of them all and you dont have an old ex-hitler-youth in a funny hat telling you what to do.

Creationism is beyond a joke, the very concept of something existing since the dawn of time itself is rediculous. Although something could have existed back then, i doubt it would still be alive and active now, or if it was i doubt it would actually give a crap about us on this rock. There could possibly be some entity out there, but in an infinite void what are the chances of it finding us?

I am quite devided on the subject of life after death, and although i would like to believe in some kind of eternal paradise, the whole immortality thing really screws with my head. Most likely, we will come back as another being, remembering nothing from out past-life.

Maybe upon death the soul (if that exists) is released and free to wander the universe for ever.

I also have some other, less reasonable theories that i will not go into here.

well, I am biased, but I believe religion can be a good thing.

It is a group where people can gather who have similar values and they can serve others and eachother. It is a group that looks out for their member's welfare and the welfare of the community in which they reside.

True, other non-religious groups also look out for human welfare but I don't think we should get rid of those either :)

As for the ancientness of scriptures and lack of present day communication from the Almighty, I agree with the non-religionists that this is a problem. But God does speak to His people (through a Prophet) today on a daily basis, just as He did long ago. No other religious institution believes this but mine. But that is ok. All churches provide some truth which will help its members become a little bit better people.

Many have complained about people claiming their religion is the only true one. While this can be confusing, it is a requisite of the belief system. If you truly believe in God, you know that He is the only one. He himself allows us no room for other gods. BUT...yes, BUT... He also told us to be kind to and love ALL mankind. So, despite differences in belief we are all to be nice to everyone.

I know this hasn't always been followed. Some groups have been set on prooving their religion by armed force. But that is not norm. That is FAR from the teachings of any group out there. Religions are mostly pacifistic, it is not the fault of religion that there are homocidal maniacs ::Grins:: Even without religion someone would find a cause to start a war or to slaughter lots of people. Some people are just stupid that way :(

Which does not really matter (in reference to my statement) just because religion does a lot of work now does not mean if it did not exist that some other organization would not pick up the slack
No amount of quoting about what they do now would prove that others would not contribute in their absence

To advocate displacing all of the organized religious charities today, in the 'hope' that something new will take it's place, what pray-tell, makes you think this ideallic new organization is going to be more benevolant and less dogmatic than the ones we have now?

People are people, we are only capable of so much. When one looks at the overwhelming magnitude of the combined good that the religous charities perform around the world on a daily basis, quietly working in the background regardless of political doctrine one way or the other, I have a hard time understanding what motivates you guys to want to just throw it all away?

Why throw away their already established institutions of collection and distribution? It works, what realistic better design could we possibly come up with? The daily world wide effort to distribute the world's food from those with plenty to those needy, is the religious organizations you all find so dispicable.

It sounds to me like you guys are just advocating, would cut off your own nose to spite your face…

well, I am biased, but I believe religion can be a good thing.

It is a group where people can gather who have similar values and they can serve others and eachother. It is a group that looks out for their member's welfare and the welfare of the community in which they reside.

True, other non-religious groups also look out for human welfare but I don't think we should get rid of those either :)

As for the ancientness of scriptures and lack of present day communication from the Almighty, I agree with the non-religionists that this is a problem. But God does speak to His people (through a Prophet) today on a daily basis, just as He did long ago. No other religious institution believes this but mine. But that is ok. All churches provide some truth which will help its members become a little bit better people.

Many have complained about people claiming their religion is the only true one. While this can be confusing, it is a requisite of the belief system. If you truly believe in God, you know that He is the only one. He himself allows us no room for other gods. BUT...yes, BUT... He also told us to be kind to and love ALL mankind. So, despite differences in belief we are all to be nice to everyone.

I know this hasn't always been followed. Some groups have been set on prooving their religion by armed force. But that is not norm. That is FAR from the teachings of any group out there. Religions are mostly pacifistic, it is not the fault of religion that there are homocidal maniacs ::Grins:: Even without religion someone would find a cause to start a war or to slaughter lots of people. Some people are just stupid that way :(


The funny thing is the first part of your statement (the help each other)
Has been put forward as a theory of religion as an evolutionary (social mostly) advantageous trait

The ability to unite zealously under one banner must have been a great advantage to any society (specially competing against other tribes that did not have that trait) and promoted the continuation of the thoughts or ideas of those that held them

But that is a tangent :)

To advocate displacing all of the organized religious charities today, in the 'hope' that something new will take it's place, what pray-tell, makes you think this ideallic new organization is going to be more benevolant and less dogmatic than the ones we have now?

People are people, we are only capable of so much. When one looks at the overwhelming magnitude of the combined good that the religous charities perform around the world on a daily basis, quietly working in the background regardless of political doctrine one way or the other, I have a hard time understanding what motivates you guys to want to just throw it all away?

Why throw away their already established institutions of collection and distribution? It works, what realistic better design could we possibly come up with? The daily world wide effort to distribute the world's food from those with plenty to those needy, is the religious organizations you all find so dispicable.

It sounds to me like you guys are just advocating, would cut off your own nose to spite your face…

I did not say displace all world religions today (the problems and reorganization would be immense) I was just making the point that if they lets say never existed that you cant really tell someone else wouldn’t have filled the charity void … I was NOT advocating the removal of religion (just because I do not believe in it does not mean that other people don’t have a right to)

Though I would love to see some checks in place for accountability for religions (the organization part not the belief part)

People are people, we are only capable of so much. When one looks at the overwhelming magnitude of the combined good that the religous charities perform around the world on a daily basis, quietly working in the background regardless of political doctrine one way or the other, I have a hard time understanding what motivates you guys to want to just throw it all away?

The fact that the same religions also promote hate, intolerance, closemindedness, discrimination, violence and misery. If they didn't - if all they did were those good deeds of charity, there would indeed be no reason to throw them away.

The fact that the same religions also promote hate, intolerance, closemindedness, discrimination, violence and misery. If they didn't - if all they did were those good deeds of charity, there would indeed be no reason to throw them away.

Actually, very few religions PROMOTE any of that. If any. The people who DO those things may be members of different religions, but the church itself didn't condone, order, or otherwise reward them for it. Sure there are weirdo cults of 100 people that will do anything, but when you get Religions that are well established with upwards of 1 million people, this behavior will not generally come from the top. Rather a rogue member will get a little cliq together unbenownst to anyone else.

Yeah, religious organizations help the poor people all around the world, but someone here seems to forget that if those poors refuse to convert and join the local christian communities (expecially in Africa), no help is given to them

Second, sometimes the education given to the people from those religious organizations do more harm than good: for example, catholic priests in african missions continue to fight against the use of condoms... in the land where the AIDS makes millions of deaths every year!! A pro-condom propaganda would save a lot of lives, but the catholic prefer to reccomend... chastity. In lands where the sexual culture is second only to India.

These are the reasons why those charity organizations would be best leaded by international non-religiuos organizations, possibly the UN

To Liskeinland: remember that what's correct for today, isn't necessarly correct forever
Things change, and so people

Actually, very few religions PROMOTE any of that. If any. The people who DO those things may be members of different religions, but the church itself didn't condone, order, or otherwise reward them for it. Sure there are weirdo cults of 100 people that will do anything, but when you get Religions that are well established with upwards of 1 million people, this behavior will not generally come from the top. Rather a rogue member will get a little cliq together unbenownst to anyone else.

Maybe the word "beget" is better than promote then ?
But I am not just thinking of terrorists, inquisitions, witchburnings etc (the latter two were condoned by the religions in question by the way). The RC church for instance actively promotes brainwashing of children. A lot of christians protest homosexual marriage. A dogmatic religion automatically excludes other viewpoints. Many followers cannot accept things that do not agree with their views, as is seen in the evolution vs ID debate. And I can continue this list for quite a while...

All these things might not be the religions main intention, but the religion is what is promoting them.

This is also the same land (Africa) where radical Islamic clerics in Nigeria are preaching a message of fear. They are telling their people how Polio vaccinations are a western conspiracy to kill the Muslims.

Ignorance through religion is a dangerous thing.

Religion is fine, but when you use it as a weapon, it can do a lot of harm.

Maybe the word "beget" is better than promote then ?

The RC church for instance actively promotes brainwashing of children. A lot of christians protest homosexual marriage. A dogmatic religion automatically excludes other viewpoints. Many followers cannot accept things that do not agree with their views, as is seen in the evolution vs ID debate. And I can continue this list for quite a while...

All these things might not be the religions main intention, but the religion is what is promoting them.

ok, what the followers can/cannot do personally is their problem. Churches as a whole tell people to love the sinner but hate the sin. They may be against a certain action, but they are ALWAYS told to be kind to the person who did the action.(at the very least in my church it is that way).

One thing is to be against a political issue. Another is to Pomote violence on those who oppose. Yes there are many people who do violence in the name of religion, it is a regrettable thing, but believe me when I tell you that the leaders of the churches also wish that they did not do such violence. (and those who do, generally do not attend the church regularly or they have since been kicked out) :)

I can understand your dislike for extremists, but just because one Baptist (for example, no offence to Baptists) shoots his wife for X Y or Z, doesn't make all Baptists bad.

Just like 9-11 was caused by people who happened to be Muslim. That doens't make Muslims bad. It just means that a certain group of people was twisted.

Generalizing the issue to say that Religion is bad because certain people do bad is not the way. Religions strive to do much good. Their aims are good. Their people are not perfect, just as non religious people are not perfect.

It is just as likely for a religious and a non religious person to do something stupid. They may blame different motivations for their actions but that doesn't make either group as a whole bad for society.

ok, what the followers can/cannot do personally is their problem. Churches as a whole tell people to love the sinner but hate the sin. They may be against a certain action, but they are ALWAYS told to be kind to the person who did the action.(at the very least in my church it is that way).

One thing is to be against a political issue. Another is to Pomote violence on those who oppose. Yes there are many people who do violence in the name of religion, it is a regrettable thing, but believe me when I tell you that the leaders of the churches also wish that they did not do such violence. (and those who do, generally do not attend the church regularly or they have since been kicked out) :)

I can understand your dislike for extremists, but just because one Baptist (for example, no offence to Baptists) shoots his wife for X Y or Z, doesn't make all Baptists bad.

Just like 9-11 was caused by people who happened to be Muslim. That doens't make Muslims bad. It just means that a certain group of people was twisted.

Generalizing the issue to say that Religion is bad because certain people do bad is not the way. Religions strive to do much good. Their aims are good. Their people are not perfect, just as non religious people are not perfect.

It is just as likely for a religious and a non religious person to do something stupid. They may blame different motivations for their actions but that doesn't make either group as a whole bad for society.

No you are right individuals do not define the whole but the organization itself has been party to everything from promoting the killing of heretics to the cover up of priests sexual acts (and I am VERY familiar with the latter) the organization itself leant itself to these acts.

Yeah, religious organizations help the poor people all around the world, but someone here seems to forget that if those poors refuse to convert and join the local christian communities (expecially in Africa), no help is given to them

That's an awfully big accusation you've made there. I. for one, have never seen a charity run medical clinic (for example), station guards at the front doors with orders to turn all the non-catholic people away...

Nor have they been stationed in front of the charity sponsored schools keeping the non-religious kids from getting an education just because their parents didn't want to convert.

I've seen an awful lot of religiously motivated volunteers paying their own way to dig wells and build walls in poverty stricken areas, yet I've never seen them asking how many converts are there before they start helping.

I think you should back up your claim with something real examples, instead of simple accusation of what you think might be happening.



Second, sometimes the education given to the people from those religious organizations do more harm than good: for example, catholic priests in african missions continue to fight against the use of condoms... in the land where the AIDS makes millions of deaths every year!! A pro-condom propaganda would save a lot of lives, but the catholic prefer to reccomend... chastity. In lands where the sexual culture is second only to India.

These are the reasons why those charity organizations would be best leaded by international non-religiuos organizations, possibly the UN

The UN can't even agree to disagree, they might be able to help during the catastrophes, the tsunamis and the earthquakes and whatnot, but for day to day food maintenance, day to day education supplies, day to day medical and vaccination supplies, the UN is poorly prepared to even try such a large scale endeavor. Nor have they shown themselves to be very skilled at such application.

And if the food-for-oil situation is any indication, the UN could take some lessons from the religious charities in the world, they put a far higher percentage of it's money into real supplies for the poor.

And you know what, the charities is entirely voluntary, how can you possibly complain what the donators to the these groups do with their own money? It's not like they are taking your tax money.

As to the religious use of condoms or chastity... Why don't you have the UN drop a few train loads of condoms down there? Why dictate that the Catholics have to do it? They don't stop other charities from working there just because they are... You're free to start and run your own if you want.

Actually, very few religions PROMOTE any of that. If any. The people who DO those things may be members of different religions, but the church itself didn't condone, order, or otherwise reward them for it. Sure there are weirdo cults of 100 people that will do anything, but when you get Religions that are well established with upwards of 1 million people, this behavior will not generally come from the top. Rather a rogue member will get a little cliq together unbenownst to anyone else.

This is possibly less true than we might like to believe. History is riddled with examples of religious institutions condoning acts of intolerance, hatred, and violence.

The First Crusade began at the behest of the papacy. The Spanish Inquisition, which was far more brutal and longlasting than many people realize, continued for years with the official sanction of the Catholic Church.

This isn't a Catholic phenomenon, either. 17th century New England Puritans, who in no small way contributed to the origins of American democracy, also promoted an incredibly intolerant faith. Even social eccentrics fell under the category of religious pariahs, and were punished, sometimes in extremely violent ways (the Salem witch hunts are a good example). The intolerance of the Puritans is ironic, considering they were systematically persecuted by the Church of England for having non-conformist beliefs. That same chuch also imposed extemely strict laws on the freedoms of Catholic in public life, most of which were not repealed until the mid-19th century.

Downplaying religious intolerance or hatred as the act of an alienated, radical splinter group is something of a misinterpretation, though it is more true now than it used to be.

That's an awfully big accusation you've made there. I. for one, have never seen a charity run medical clinic (for example), station guards at the front doors with orders to turn all the non-catholic people away...

Of course, because clinics aren't religious organizations. Doctors aren't priests, they don't need to be religious to do their job.

Nor have they been stationed in front of the charity sponsored schools keeping the non-religious kids from getting an education just because their parents didn't want to convert.

If you want to study there, you are baptized the first day. That's a forced convertion, my friend

I've seen an awful lot of religiously motivated volunteers paying their own way to dig wells and build walls in poverty stricken areas, yet I've never seen them asking how many converts are there before they start helping.

We're talking about institutions, not single persons.

I think you should back up your claim with something real examples, instead of simple accusation of what you think might be happening.

I think you should just inform on how the world around you works.

You're free to start and run your own if you want.

For example, this is false. Inform.

I'm religious, and I don't understand why people who aren't religious get pissed off when we try to tell them about our religion. We're told to get others to follow Christ as we have. Can't you understand that? I don't try to "convert" anyone, and I don't press my beliefs on anyone, but I do try to tell people about Christ and christianity.

Religion (denomination) is purely subjective to me. Many churches claim to be the "true" church of Christ, and I've found that it's subjective. I've been to many churches, Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian, Methodist, Unitarian and even Mormon. They all believe in the same fundamental truth: God is God and Jesus was his son, and died on the cross for our sins. Other than that, denomination is majorly just the type of lifestyle that you want to live.

I'm religious, and I don't understand why people who aren't religious get pissed off when we try to tell them about our religion. We're told to get others to follow Christ as we have. Can't you understand that? I don't try to "convert" anyone, and I don't press my beliefs on anyone, but I do try to tell people about Christ and christianity.

Religion (denomination) is purely subjective to me. Many churches claim to be the "true" church of Christ, and I've found that it's subjective. I've been to many churches, Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian, Methodist, Unitarian and even Mormon. They all believe in the same fundamental truth: God is God and Jesus was his son, and died on the cross for our sins. Other than that, denomination is majorly just the type of lifestyle that you want to live.
We just get a little pissy with all the attempts to legislate the churches beliefs. Not to mention being talked to about it all the time

You may not understand why your talking to me about it once annoys me … but if you think of it if roughly 50 percent of the people in the USA talk to just one other person about Christianity the rest of us have heard it at least once

Just because it is the first time you said it to me does not mean that I have not heard it 6 times today.

just to be clear: I have nothing against religions and appreciate very much the messages of the great men which where Jesus, Gautama, Mohamed etc.
What i do criticize is the sistematic use of religion by the consolidated churches as a form of massive mind control, aiming to an imposition of the faith
maybe some of you will find this vision a little far-fetched, but I live in Italy and here the situation is this one.

In other words: religion as a personal experience between a man and his own spirituality is always a good thing; religion as a form of education/communication between big institutions adn the masses leads often to emargination of the different (mostly through fear)

Of course, because clinics aren't religious organizations. Doctors aren't priests, they don't need to be religious to do their job.


The clinics are sponsored and maintained via an organized religion. I said they were good, you said they were not, now you agree? Good.


If you want to study there, you are baptized the first day. That's a forced conversion, my friend

A little sprinkle water or a full submersion dunking? Just curious. I'd like to see that, sounds fun. :) Oh wait, I mean, how horribly oppressive and evil of them... not.



We're talking about institutions, not single persons. Without the organizations the individuals wouldn't know how to help. The Organizations provide a way for the individual to be able to donate more than just money, but of themselves as well. No matter how I look at it, I can't see it as anything other than a good thing.



I think you should just inform on how the world around you works. Hmmmm, okay. How did that help us establish a better picture for this discussion?



For example, this is false. Inform. What's false? You can't create your own charity organization or you can't compete with the catholic charities (the one you seem to be the most against anyway).

Why don't you have the UN drop a few train loads of condoms down there?

They do. But the catholic organizations, more widespread in the territory, tell the people not to use them.

Non Religous myself. I don't claim to know whether or not there is a higher power watching things; it has yet to be proven either way. And I believe in evidence. There's a Heinlein quote that goes something like "Once you have accepted something on faith, you can no longer accept evidence in the matter." That pretty much sums up how I feel about gods.

Organized religion, however, often has very little to do with gods. Yeah, they use their gods and their holy books to promote whatever their political agenda is, but with most holy writings, they can be used to say whatever you want them to. The Bible (just as an example, it is by no means the only one with problems, it just happens to be the one that most English speakers are most familiar with) is full of contradictions, and can be used to support almost any argument you want to make about anything. Just cite selectively. It's what most organized religions do...

I would definately have less problem with organized religion if they didn't proselytize. I don't believe in your god; your holy books don't "prove" the existance of your god, no matter how long you try to explain them to me; had I wanted to join your religion, I would have - it's not like I haven't heard of it. Please leave me alone. I don't come to your home/work/streetcorner and tell you that you AREN'T going to hell because it doesn't really exist. Do me the same courtesy, and don't bug me about it. I will gladly be your friend, and we can have intelligent discussions about religion, as long as you accept my right to not convert, just as I accept your right to believe.

Oops. This got too long. I'm done.

A little sprinkle water or a full submersion dunking? Just curious. I'd like to see that, sounds fun. :) Oh wait, I mean, how horribly oppressive and evil of them... not.


I see you have a great respect for the personal freedoms, like choosing your own religion.

They do. But the catholic organizations, more widespread in the territory, tell the people not to use them. Well, I don't have to agree with their view on contraceptives, but I will stand by their right to have and maintain their view. In their defense, they are consistent with it anyway.

Their view may be impractical, for chastity, but it's not incorrect per-se. If everyone was chaste and only had sex with their one and only spouse, then the AIDS epidemic would end, one way or the other. However, I don't believe that is going to happen.

Anyone claiming, "I don't use condom because priest tell me not to, as he commits adultry or fornication" is absurd. Because he wouldn't be sleeping with anyone outside of his spouse at all if he really cared what the priest said... Even so, small argument against them.

I see you have a great respect for the personal freedoms, like choosing your own religion.


To them, sprinkling the water on their students isn't a conversion at all, they THINK it's helping the student, a protective measure. You might think it's silly, but I fail to see how they should be stopped from praying for their own students even if the praying involves a sprinkling of water being splashed around. I hardly see how this constitutes forced conversion in the bush of Africa... And I don't see a whole lot of other groups building schools and medical clinics down there at all. In the balance, it's far better to not just allow them to continue, but endorse it, better than stopping them over a little getting wet hurts them anyway.

if the african people did choose a wife for their entire life and had sex only with her, avoiding to have sex with anyone before the marriage, maybe the AIDS epidemy would end, but also the african culture. By the way, I don't know anyone who has in program to remain chaste till his marriage.
With the use of preservatives you can beat AIDS without middle-aging africa

There are no arguments for or against religion. Either you believe it or you don't. There's no logic or science to it, despite 'intelligent design' pretending be a theory of some sort. It can't be proved or disproved, because of the nature of God.

As for choosing your own religion - everyone is free to choose their religion, because it's an internal thing. People will try to convince others by doing various things, including sprinkling water, and at a more extreme level some people are persecuted when it is found out what they believe. But you can't make someone believe something unless you convince them, and that's fair enough.

And I don't see a whole lot of other groups building schools and medical clinics down there at all.

SOS Children's Villages Association (private), World medical Fund (private) and UNICEF (UN) immediately come to mind. http://www.africaguide.com/charity.htm lists quite a lot more. The majority is not based on a specific religion.

To them, sprinkling the water on their students isn't a conversion at all, they THINK it's helping the student, a protective measure. You might think it's silly, but I fail to see how they should be stopped from praying for their own students even if the praying involves a sprinkling of water being splashed around. I hardly see how this constitutes forced conversion in the bush of Africa... And I don't see a whole lot of other groups building schools and medical clinics down there at all. In the balance, it's far better to not just allow them to continue, but endorse it, better than stopping them over a little getting wet hurts them anyway.

Once you are baptized, you are officially considered a catholic, even in your documents.
The problem here is that if you REFUSE to be baptized, because you don't want to be considered a catholic, you cannot receive an education.
Of course some missionars, which live in the misery of africa and can understand better the people there, do "secretly" exceptions because even they recognize how absurd this dogmatic system is; other follow the rules of the institution

if the african people did choose a wife for their entire life and had sex only with her, avoiding to have sex with anyone before the marriage, maybe the AIDS epidemy would, but also the african culture.

Actually that is not completely true. I have studied a bit of African culture, and a great deal of them ARE actually monogamous. At least most from the Congo and Northward.

By the way, I don't know anyone who has in program to remain chaste till his marriage.

I did it. I didn't have sex til I was married. And I know hundreds/thousands of other guys too that have been chaste til marriage too. It is not that far fetched, people just have to want it.

To them, sprinkling the water on their students isn't a conversion at all, they THINK it's helping the student, a protective measure. You might think it's silly, but I fail to see how they should be stopped from praying for their own students even if the praying involves a sprinkling of water being splashed around. I hardly see how this constitutes forced conversion in the bush of Africa... And I don't see a whole lot of other groups building schools and medical clinics down there at all. In the balance, it's far better to not just allow them to continue, but endorse it, better than stopping them over a little getting wet hurts them anyway.


It hurts the students about as much as not sprinkling the water hurts the Christians.

As for choosing your own religion - everyone is free to choose their religion, because it's an internal thing. People will try to convince others by doing various things, including sprinkling water, and at a more extreme level some people are persecuted when it is found out what they believe. But you can't make someone believe something unless you convince them, and that's fair enough.

Unless you start when the person in question is a little toddler and raise him with your beliefs all through his childhood... Even if he turns away from the religion later in life, he will still think and reason similarly to the faithful followers to a great degree, and subconciously view moral issues from the religions viewpoint. A viewpoint not always based on logic.

For this reason I would like to forbid raising children in a specific religious belief - and allow them to make the choice for themselves when they are old enough. Naturally schools would be required to give honest and unbiased information about the main religions then, and provide easy access to information on less mainstream religions.

Actually that is not completely true. I have studied a bit of African culture, and a great deal of them ARE actually monogamous. At least most from the Congo and Northward.

I agree, but being monogamous doesn't mean you have sex with just one person in your entire life. By the way, in most Africa the concept of marriage itself is unknown.

I did it. I didn't have sex til I was married. And I know hundreds/thousands of other guys too that have been chaste til marriage too. It is not that far fetched, people just have to want it.

I see. Just for information: where do you live?

Do I believe in religion? Yes. There's quite well established evidence that religion exists.

If on the other hand you would like to ask if I believe the specific supernatural type claims made by any particular religion you'd likely be getting a different answer.

Do I believe in religion? Yes. There's quite well established evidence that religion exists.

If on the other hand you would like to ask if I believe the specific supernatural type claims made by any particular religion you'd likely be getting a different answer.
Lol I like that (there sure is evidence that religion exists Just look at all the churches!)

By the way, in most Africa the concept of marriage itself is unknown.

??? Starting to wonder which Africa you are thinking about... ???

in many tribes of the central region of africa marriage isn't known. Only in the so-called "civilized" Africa and in the North you have the tradition of marriage.

Besides, I think we have run a little bit out of the topic. I think it wasn't supposed to be a discussion about charity organizations in Africa :)

Yanis, I live just outside of Washington DC.

in many tribes of the central region of africa marriage isn't known. Only in the so-called "civilized" Africa and in the North you have the tradition of marriage.


Admittedly there was a lot of polygyny, but to say they didn’t have marriage, I have no idea what you are talking about. From The Zulu in the south to Chad in the north, there were and are still institutions for marriage.

Here’s a reading list if you really want to know about this stuff:
-Berger, Iris and E. Frances White. Women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Restoring Women to History series. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1999.

-Davison, Jean. Voices from Mutira: Change in the Lives of Rural Gikuyu Women, 1910-1995. 2nd edition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996.

-Schmidt, Elizabeth. Peasants, Traders, and Wives: Shona Women in the History of Zimbabwe, 1870-1939. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1992.

Chastity is a dogma I hardly comprehend. I'd like to hear the reasons of your choice.

I'd like to note that none of the options listed apply to me. Christianity is not a religion. Religion is defined as the quest for God. As Christians, we believe that we are not seeking Him, but have already found Him. Thus, we are not religious. But if we go to someone and say we are not religious, they will believe we are either atheistic or agnostic. I am a Christian pursuing a relationship with the God I have already found. I am not religious.

Actually, Religion is defined as the belief in God, or better as the union of men under the same cult

I'd like to note that none of the options listed apply to me. Christianity is not a religion. Religion is defined as the quest for God. As Christians, we believe that we are not seeking Him, but have already found Him. Thus, we are not religious. But if we go to someone and say we are not religious, they will believe we are either atheistic or agnostic. I am a Christian pursuing a relationship with the God I have already found. I am not religious.
Then you are not using the english deffinition of the word religious
re·li·gious Audio pronunciation of "religious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljs)
adj.

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty

Chastity is a dogma I hardly comprehend. I'd like to hear the reasons of your choice.

ok :) glad to be of service.

I have several reasons. These are my personal reasons...

1. It is the safest path to avoid disease of any kind.
2. I believe that sex is extremely sacred and only wanted to share it with my eternal mate.
3. Marriage becomes more obsolete without chastity. If I can have sex without marriage, then why get married?
4. Sex is the union of two souls into one. There is a supreme closeness and love that is kindled and created in Marital sex.
5. A man is only as stong as his weakest weakness. In abstaining from something you gain personal strength. This is a proven Psychological phenomenon. If you willingly give up something, your self mastery grows, your power over your own body increases.
6. He who indulges his every whim cannot grow. Indulgence leads to discontent which leads to bitterness.

alright, philosophical explaination finished, I have other reasons too, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

All religious laws have a deeper philosophical and psychological reason behind them no matter how silly they seem on the surface :)

Who then will champion the poor of society? Who will defend the weak and the infirm? Is there another voice that they have in the societies around the world, in any society, that allows the weak to voices their concerns to the powerful, the rich and the strong? The weak individuals would be passed by on the streets, ignored by the powerful as they perform the busy-ness of living, ignoring them completely. But organized religion give these desperate people a way or form, hospitals, orphanages, care for the elderly, food shelves, holiday help for the children of the poor etc., etc., etc.

There are plenty of organizations that help the poor, the weak, and the needy, and many of those organizations have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Let me list three that I give my charity dollars to:

Childreach
Unicef
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

If I were to find out that any one of these organizations proselytized to those who they were supposed to be helping, that would be the end of it for me. I used to give to an organization that fed the homeless in my area, called, "Loaves and Fishes," but quit because of the proselytization issue. That is a complete turn-off for me.


So unless you are anti-union and pro-oppressive government and big business and rich and powerful, why would you be against organized religion? It might be the only place left that these people can find any support whatsoever to voice their public opinion.

I pretty much am anti-union, but as a Libertarian, I am certainly not pro-oppressive or theocratic governments. In fact, I believe the government should play a very limited role in the affairs of its citizens. For the most part, I'm okay with business - big, small or in-between. For me, it's all about freedom, and I don't need to sell my soul, so to speak, to some damned religion so that they will fight my battles for me.

ok :) glad to be of service.

I have several reasons. These are my personal reasons...

1. It is the safest path to avoid disease of any kind.
2. I believe that sex is extremely sacred and only wanted to share it with my eternal mate.
3. Marriage becomes more obsolete without chastity. If I can have sex without marriage, then why get married?
4. Sex is the union of two souls into one. There is a supreme closeness and love that is kindled and created in Marital sex.
5. A man is only as stong as his weakest weakness. In abstaining from something you gain personal strength. This is a proven Psychological phenomenon. If you willingly give up something, your self mastery grows, your power over your own body increases.
6. He who indulges his every whim cannot grow. Indulgence leads to discontent which leads to bitterness.

alright, philosophical explaination finished, I have other reasons too, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

All religious laws have a deeper philosophical and psychological reason behind them no matter how silly they seem on the surface :)


Ok, now I tell you to what I agree or not :)
to 1: This is right, it's the safest way, but I find it a little too extreme :) I prefer using contrapcetives, taking a small risk, and not renouncing to the pleasure
to 2: I agree, sex can be seen as a sacred thing, but this doesn't mean that it has to be practiced only with a single woman. But I think this depends on our different acception of "sacred"
to 3: I don't think the purpose of marriage is to have sex. After all, the majority of people have sex before marriage, and still marries.
to 5: This is half-true. A man becomes stronger by abstaining from something, but also by being led by his passions. It depends on the circumstances.
to 6: it's a question of point of views

ok :) glad to be of service.

I have several reasons. These are my personal reasons...

1. It is the safest path to avoid disease of any kind.
2. I believe that sex is extremely sacred and only wanted to share it with my eternal mate.
3. Marriage becomes more obsolete without chastity. If I can have sex without marriage, then why get married?
4. Sex is the union of two souls into one. There is a supreme closeness and love that is kindled and created in Marital sex.
5. A man is only as stong as his weakest weakness. In abstaining from something you gain personal strength. This is a proven Psychological phenomenon. If you willingly give up something, your self mastery grows, your power over your own body increases.
6. He who indulges his every whim cannot grow. Indulgence leads to discontent which leads to bitterness.

alright, philosophical explaination finished, I have other reasons too, but these are the ones that come to mind at the moment.

All religious laws have a deeper philosophical and psychological reason behind them no matter how silly they seem on the surface :)

Sexual intercourse is not the only way to get an STD


All religious laws have a deeper philosophical and psychological reason behind them no matter how silly they seem on the surface :)


And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." -- Leviticus 19:19

There is some psychological or philosophical reason not to mix wool with linen ?

How about LEV 11:10

11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


Psychological reasoning for not eating shellfish?
How about philosophical

hey, you asked me for MY reasons :)

to 5: This is half-true. A man becomes stronger by abstaining from something, but also by being led by his passions. It depends on the circumstances.


but not by following only his passions. He has to give and take :)

citing Gandhi, once you reach the core of your religion, you reach the core of every religion
I think that in the origin, in their essencial message, every religion is worth
the contradictions, the hypocriesies, the strangenesses begin with the building of a structure around it
christ said essencially to love your next: this means that if my next is gay and he wants to marry, I shouldn't deny him this right

Sexual intercourse is not the only way to get an STD

lol, no. BUT doing drugs is not healthy either ;) He asked me about sex, so I talked about sex, and that is one of the way to avoid STDs. no need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing with a Christian :) its ok, not everything Christians say is crap



There is some psychological or philosophical reason not to mix wool with linen ?

Actually, I'm not completely sure on this one, I will do some more research, but I believe it had something to do with making sure people didn't become prideful. Having blended fabric was probably seen to be more expensive than pure fabrics snd thus a sign of prestige, and could be seen as vanity.
;)



How about LEV 11:10
Psychological reasoning for not eating shellfish?
How about philosophical

Again, I'm going to have to do some more research on this one, but most of the FOOD commandments had to do with sanitation and health. So....here is another stab. Maybe because they were too far from the ocean for shellfish to be transported safely without going bad that the Lord forbade it for their own health. They could eat fish because it could be caught locally, but shellfish had to be imported and they didn't have refrigerators you know :D

I don't like any of the choices on the poll. Yes, I believe that religion exists, but I don't nessecarily believe in any of the spiritual concepts of any organized religion. I do have my own spirtual beliefs, though.


My arguement against religion is that there are so many that contradict each other-they can't all be "true". One of them might, but how could we possibly distinguish which one?

NOTE: if this turns into a flame war, I want the mods to close it.

Now, there are many reasons why people are and aren't religious.

What I'd like to know is...why?

Why are you for religion, and if you are, why is religion so great? Please keep this as non-political as you can. I just want pure beliefs.

For the other guys - I think religion sucks. What's your take on it? Why do you hate it?

Ok...main rule: do NOT insult the people who you don't agree with.

Now then, since I have no religion, I fall into the second group.

I don't like religion because it's restrictive.

It's like a legal cult/sorority/fraternity. There are such hoops you have to go through to join/convert. There are so many arcane rules that don't apply to moder life it's not funny. These ulta-conservative and even "liberal" religions seem very...puritan.

And the elitists in these religions look down upon those they consider inferior. There is a culture of superiority that seems to make one religion better than another. I mean, who many times have we gone to war over religion? Too many...


I belive in the Christian god, but I do not require anyone else to subscribe to my belief system. I stress that my faith is a matter of belief, not proof, and therefore I cannot require anyone else to be Christian.

I am also agnostic. I belive that if God does not want to his existance to be proved, it will not be proved, since he's all attitude.

For example, the belief in paradise and hell... isn't it obvous that it is a human construction? It's a typical human authoritarian way of seeing things: a very marked dualism between what is considered to be right and what is considered to be wrong, with very little space for discussion. If God really hasn't invented nothing better than that, well, I am not impressed at all.

For example, the belief in paradise and hell... isn't it obvous that it is a human construction? It's a typical human authoritarian way of seeing things: a very marked dualism between what is considered to be right and what is considered to be wrong, with very little space for discussion. If God really hasn't invented nothing better than that, well, I am not impressed at all.

You'd like our church then :)
There are several gradations.

Celestial Glory -- Top of the top (typically described as heaven)
Terrestrial Glory -- Not so bad
Telestial Glory -- Not so good
and Outer Darkness -- Pure evil (typically described as hell)

lol, no. BUT doing drugs is not healthy either ;) He asked me about sex, so I talked about sex, and that is one of the way to avoid STDs. no need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing with a Christian :) its ok, not everything Christians say is crap




Actually, I'm not completely sure on this one, I will do some more research, but I believe it had something to do with making sure people didn't become prideful. Having blended fabric was probably seen to be more expensive than pure fabrics snd thus a sign of prestige, and could be seen as vanity.
;)




Again, I'm going to have to do some more research on this one, but most of the FOOD commandments had to do with sanitation and health. So....here is another stab. Maybe because they were too far from the ocean for shellfish to be transported safely without going bad that the Lord forbade it for their own health. They could eat fish because it could be caught locally, but shellfish had to be imported and they didn't have refrigerators you know :D


That’s a physical reason for it not psychological or philosophical :) just pointing it out

But I am not disagreeing because you are Christian … I was myself in my very early years and you will find some incredibly awesome Christians around the forums (depublicants along with PR and some of the others) I may not agree with everything they think but I hardly argue just because of their faith


:) I don’t take anything at a glance so expect an argument from me on almost anything :)

you know, it's not a question of how many grades there are, it's the entire system of reward and punishment which is too... human
if there is an afterlife at all, I don't think it is so simplicistic

you know, it's not a question of how many grades there are, it's the entire system of reward and punishment which is too... human
if there is an afterlife at all, I don't think it is so simplicistic

Well, you are right. I don't think it really is a simple system, I just think it has been simplified for human understanding. You see the same thing in todays society, if you don't paint it very simply, people get confused ::Grins::

(Note: not all ppl, but the general masses)

i say it's simplicistic because it doesn't explain the choices
for example, if a person is gay, and proud to be it, where does he go? for the majority of the religions, straight to hell... but why? he doesn't harm anyone. I can understand why people think that an assassin will go to hell, but when it just concernes personal choices which affect anyone but the single person, why punish him with eternal pain?

Wah, doing a remarkable job of staying civil, this is amazing. This is awesome.

I personally believe very much in religion (which anybody who has encountered me has probably heard on other debates), but not because of the whole "this is the True Way" or "if I'm not --------, I'll go to Hell" or any of that nonsense. I do because it makes me feel like there's more of a purpose to my living. Do you know how pointless I would be if I thought that there's nothing left after we die, but for our bodies to slowly decay? And not in a way that I think it's pointless for others to believe that, because in fact I admire that they're so confident as to say that with certainty. But it's that same kind of confidence that I hold to and say, I believe that there's more to it.

However, if things keep getting so religiously bound in the American legal system, I might just have to convert from Catholic to Spiritualist, because they're giving Christians all around a bad name, whether or not they deserve it. That's when religion goes too far. Way....too....far.