NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, now, the first thing I have to make clear here is that I'm only reporting personal impressions and subjective notions.
But I can't help feeling that religion is becoming more and more of an issue in the US at the moment.

I notice the amount of time it's being brought up here, in most cases by citizens of the US. Not exclusively, but noticeably so.
In the past couple months, I've seen more and more Simpsons episodes dealing with religion as their main topic (Bart becoming catholic, Lisa rallying against creationism, ...) I'm sure they are most likely not the newest ones, but it was the first time I've ever seen them in here in Europe.
The discussion about teaching creationsim as science. The whole notion of creationism as such! I'd never before so much as heard the word.

Now, none of this is proof that there is an increased focus on religion or even an increase in religious fundamentalism, and I'd be more than grateful if some US Americans could tell me I'm completely and utterly wrong....
But what's with all this bible thumping lately? :confused:

There's been a steady increase in fundamentalism and biblical-literalism in the US as a percentage of the population since the founding of the republic. Kevin Phillips documents it pretty well in the book American Theocracy. I've studied religion for quite a while now and I was amazed by just how steady the rise has been.

So it's not just your imagination. Fundamentalists have been getting not only louder and more influential, but have been increasing in number for quite a while now, to the point where Phillips refers to the current Republican party as the first major theocratic party in US politics.

Because people have too much free time, and personalize politics too much.

And America, going back even to pre-Revolutionary colonial days, has always been a nation of bible-thumpers. Why, the original colonists in New England went there seeking religious freedom, or so we're taught. The freedom they sought was the freedom to impose their view of what a Christian society should be on other people, which is how they made England a little warm for them. And revivalism has always been a factor here. Wikie has a couple interesting articles on revivalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revivalism#History_of_Christian_revival) and the Great Awakenings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening) in particular.

One could make the arguement, mentioned in the articles cited above, that the Great Awakenings had profound effects on US politics, inasmuch as the First Great Awakening preceded the American Revolution and the Second preceded, or encompassed, the Abolition movement. It has also been proposed that there was a Fourth Great Awakening in the 1960's and 70's in the rise of the modern charismatic and evangelist movements, and that we might be seeing the impact of that on politics now.

Ultimately, though, it's the effect of religion - basically Protestant in the US, and increasingly fundementalist - on politics and government.

There's been a steady increase in fundamentalism and biblical-literalism in the US as a percentage of the population since the founding of the republic. Kevin Phillips documents it pretty well in the book American Theocracy. I've studied religion for quite a while now and I was amazed by just how steady the rise has been.

I read some of that at Barnes and Noble yesterday...it was an excellent book, but also very disturbing because it shows you how dangerous and how influential fundamentalism is within our government.

Religion wasn't anywhere near the same issue it is today until the concept of the "one true God" became dominant (which it became by the sword, convienently); the concept of syncreticism was thrown aside because it didn't work with the concept of "either you believe in God X or you go to hell after we kill you", which guaranteed centuries of persecution for those who don't conform to that religious system.

Personally, I feel that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic form of monotheism was one of mankind's most terrible regressions; it's pretty clear that we took a big step backward with this one.

Religion wasn't anywhere near the same issue it is today until the concept of the "one true God" became dominant (which it became by the sword, convienently); the concept of syncreticism was thrown aside because it didn't work with the concept of "either you believe in God X or you go to hell after we kill you", which guaranteed centuries of persecution for those who don't conform to that religious system.

that must me the best description of christianity i have ever heard:D

Probably something to do with the impending Apocalypse!

There's been a steady increase in fundamentalism and biblical-literalism in the US as a percentage of the population since the founding of the republic. Kevin Phillips documents it pretty well in the book American Theocracy. I've studied religion for quite a while now and I was amazed by just how steady the rise has been.

So it's not just your imagination. Fundamentalists have been getting not only louder and more influential, but have been increasing in number for quite a while now, to the point where Phillips refers to the current Republican party as the first major theocratic party in US politics.
Have you read said book? I've seen it advertised either on the Daily Show or on the Colbert Report (I believe the DS?). Is it a good read? (Not that I'll ever be able to read stuff just for the hell of it - I'm almost always behind on my required reading...)

that must me the best description of christianity i have ever heard:D
You mean god-based religion as a whole, right?

I'm not calling for other people to be killed, because it goes against my religion. And I am a Christian!

that must me the best description of christianity i have ever heard:D

Doesn't sound anything like Christianity to me, actually.

You god-based mean religion as a whole, right?

I'm not calling for other people to be killed, because it goes against my religion. And I am a Christian!

Nope, I'm talking about the use of monotheistic religion by governments to justify religious repression; the only tie to Christianity or Islam is the fact that the governments who used them for evil claimed to be "saving" people when in reality they were just butchering their opposition and forcing their religion on people in order to justify power grabs and enrichment of the feudal elite.

If anything, it's a criticism of state-sponsored Christianity from about 400AD to the 15th/16th centuries; after this point, Christianity gradually developed in to a very peaceful and generally tolerant religious tradition (with always the exception of occasional extremists). The rise of Christian humanism and social liberalism both coincide with the evolution of Christianity during the Renaissance and Reformation.

(It's also a criticism of Islam from the 7th century to about the 10th century, and from the 19th century to the present...but no one seems to read that part.)

Nope, I'm talking about the use of monotheistic religion by governments to justify religious repression; the only tie to Christianity or Islam is the fact that the governments who used them for evil claimed to be "saving" people when in reality they were just butchering their opposition and forcing their religion on people in order to justify power grabs and enrichment of the feudal elite.

If anything, it's a criticism of state-sponsored Christianity from about 400AD to the 15th/16th centuries; after this point, Christianity gradually developed in to a very peaceful and generally tolerant religious tradition (with always the exception of occasional extremists). The rise of Christian humanism and social liberalism both coincide with the evolution of Christianity during the Renaissance and Reformation.

(It's also a criticism of Islam from the 7th century to about the 10th century, and from the 19th century to the present...but no one seems to read that part.)
I'm cool with what you said, all of it. (But I didn't quote you but the one who picked that one sentence and applied it to Christianity, which I opposed).

I'm cool with what you said, all of it. (But I didn't quote you but the one who picked that one sentence and applied it to Christianity, which I opposed).

I mainly wanted to make sure that people don't take it as hostility towards Christianity or any other religious system.

There's been a steady increase in fundamentalism and biblical-literalism in the US as a percentage of the population since the founding of the republic.
I would imagine that it was much higher in the 19th century and the 1920s and even 50s than now.

Have you read said book? I've seen it advertised either on the Daily Show or on the Colbert Report (I believe the DS?). Is it a good read? (Not that I'll ever be able to read stuff just for the hell of it - I'm almost always behind on my required reading...)
Oh yeah--it's an amazing book. I got bogged down in the economic stuff at the end a bit, but when he's talking about both the religious history of the US and the similarities between US dependence on oil and comparing it to the historical examples of the British empire's dependence on coal or the Dutch on wind and sea power, he's fascinating. It's worth the time and effort to get to it.

I would imagine that it was much higher in the 19th century and the 1920s and even 50s than now.

You'd be wrong. I was surprised myself, but the figures don't lie. Fundamentalists and evangelicals make up a larger percentage of the US population now than in any other time in US history, and they wield a disproportionate amount of political power. They're about 38% of the population, but they make up about 58% of the Republican party. They dominate the party now, and Republicans cannot win nationwide without them. Here's another figure I read this morning--78% of self-identified evangelicals vote with the Republican party.

That said, evangelicals can't win nationally on their own, but they have enough allies that they dominate the discourse now.

Phillips notes that this isn't a straight line upward for evangelicals--there are peaks and valleys, but the trend is solidly upward. And there's usually a valley right after an "awakening" event, so he has nopes that the current trend will lessen in the next ten years or so. I hope it comes sooner.

Oh yeah--it's an amazing book. I got bogged down in the economic stuff at the end a bit, but when he's talking about both the religious history of the US and the similarities between US dependence on oil and comparing it to the historical examples of the British empire's dependence on coal or the Dutch on wind and sea power, he's fascinating. It's worth the time and effort to get to it.
Thank you. Maybe I should add it to my reading list ;)

You'd be wrong. I was surprised myself, but the figures don't lie. Fundamentalists and evangelicals make up a larger percentage of the US population now than in any other time in US history, and they wield a disproportionate amount of political power. They're about 38% of the population
How did this happen? :eek:

How did this happen? :eek:

My guess is a romanticization of the days of Ozzie and Harriet by the US middle class, who see the nation as having been in decline ever since the 1960s, and who (right or wrong) blame moral relativity for the increases in crime, the state of education, and the dissipation of US power.

Why else do fundamentalists go back to their roots?

How did this happen? :eek:

Good question. The cynical part of me says that when people started to immigrate to the New World for "religious freedom," only the crazy ones came, leaving Europe with the sane Christians and we've been inbreeding ever since then. :D

There's no one single answer for it. Phillips credits the way the Southern Baptist Convention handled post Civil War religion for their expansion and dominance of today's evangelical scene. They preached that the South's defeat was God's way of testing their faith, to see if they would remain true to Him. (Funny how to religious people, when something bad happens to another, it's God's wrath, but when it happens to them, it's a test.) So it wasn't much of a surprise that when Reconstruction ended, former Confederates who reclaimed power also claimed a new church, thus wedding the two movements. There are exceptions, of course--there's a black contingent in the Southern Baptist Convention, but they have little influence on the politics of the group.

Phillips also spends a good bit of time on Pentecostals, as they're the second-largest fundamentalist group in the US.

Ok, now, the first thing I have to make clear here is that I'm only reporting personal impressions and subjective notions.
But I can't help feeling that religion is becoming more and more of an issue in the US at the moment.

I notice the amount of time it's being brought up here, in most cases by citizens of the US. Not exclusively, but noticeably so.
In the past couple months, I've seen more and more Simpsons episodes dealing with religion as their main topic (Bart becoming catholic, Lisa rallying against creationism, ...) I'm sure they are most likely not the newest ones, but it was the first time I've ever seen them in here in Europe.
The discussion about teaching creationsim as science. The whole notion of creationism as such! I'd never before so much as heard the word.

Now, none of this is proof that there is an increased focus on religion or even an increase in religious fundamentalism, and I'd be more than grateful if some US Americans could tell me I'm completely and utterly wrong....
But what's with all this bible thumping lately? :confused:


Sadly, you're not. Religous fundamentalists have become and increasingly powerful lobby in American politics. The politicians appealing to them know that they're completly insane, but they use them to further their corporate goals. It's rather like how used car salesmen know that their customers are dupes. Sadly, neither religous fundamentalism, nor used car fraud, are going away anytime soon.

How did this happen? :eek:

When the economy is doing poorly, people start looking for easy answers. It's no mistake that fundamentalist christians are opposed to social welfare spending, despite the Bible's directions to care for the poor and "render unto Ceaser" and all that.

These religous charlatans are using the government to promote their own growth in power.

Mass media, especially televangalsim, fed the hype tremendously, but they were delt a staggering blow in the 80's when Jimmy Baker was revealed to be a total fraud. Then the rest went hiding until they too were discovered. Now Pat Robertson remains the only large national televangelical figure, though there are some others that use religous infomercials.

But they constantly preach republican talking points to their flock and then those politicians repeat those talking points to more secular sane people by pretending that it's "sound economic theory" or some other nonsense.

In reality it's all designed to weaken and impoverish the working class which will make them more docile religous sheep (why do you think they're called 'the flock') because of all the uncertainty. It's a widly seen phenomenon that when people are uncertain about the future they become more superstitous. Then they're told to go and vote for republicans who will make them more uncertain of the future, and even more superstitous with bad economic policies.

Even a few people here have repeated the propaganda by saying that "it's not government's job. That's what we have Christian Charity for."

*sigh
I had been sincerely hoping for someone to at least try and tell me that's all just media-hype and a distorted picture that we here are getting.

The picture I'm getting is pretty disturbing to say the least, let alone very hard to understand or believe. Many sociologists will tell you that if you increase the wealth and the education of any given populace, their religious fervor will fade. Is that maybe where an attempt to reduce the numbers of fundamentalists could be aimed at? Provide them with better education and make sure that their standards of living are adequate?

Good question. The cynical part of me says that when people started to immigrate to the New World for "religious freedom," only the crazy ones came, leaving Europe with the sane Christians and we've been inbreeding ever since then. :D
You know that the Puritans were persecuted in England for banning everything fun under Cromwell? Nice ancestors we have there, huh? :p

*sigh
I had been sincerely hoping for someone to at least try and tell me that's all just media-hype and a distorted picture that we here are getting.

The picture I'm getting is pretty disturbing to say the least, let alone very hard to understand or believe. Many sociologists will tell you that if you increase the wealth and the education of any given populace, their religious fervor will fade. Is that maybe where an attempt to reduce the numbers of fundamentalists could be aimed at? Provide them with better education and make sure that their standards of living are adequate?

It's more that if you give all of the wealth to the rich, and none to the poor, the rich will spend a lot of money on the poor to keep them occupied and not, say, rioting (see Saudi for a good example of this).

So the larger the income disparity of a country, usually the larger the level of religious zeal due to money being spent on religious buildings to pacify the population.

You know that the Puritans were persecuted in England for banning everything fun under Cromwell? Nice ancestors we have there, huh? :p

Actually they were persecuted before Cromwell and only banned everything fun after they took over the country and cut off King Charles' head. (Funny how King Charles' head keeps creeping into things ... points for identifying that allusion). Before they got into power they sent some of their relations over to the New World, where the idea of someone somewhere having fun has been upsetting their descendants for 300 years.

And America, going back even to pre-Revolutionary colonial days, has always been a nation of bible-thumpers. Why, the original colonists in New England went there seeking religious freedom, or so we're taught. The freedom they sought was the freedom to impose their view of what a Christian society should be on other people, which is how they made England a little warm for them. And revivalism has always been a factor here. Wikie has a couple interesting articles on revivalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revivalism#History_of_Christian_revival) and the Great Awakenings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening) in particular.

One could make the arguement, mentioned in the articles cited above, that the Great Awakenings had profound effects on US politics, inasmuch as the First Great Awakening preceded the American Revolution and the Second preceded, or encompassed, the Abolition movement. It has also been proposed that there was a Fourth Great Awakening in the 1960's and 70's in the rise of the modern charismatic and evangelist movements, and that we might be seeing the impact of that on politics now.

Ultimately, though, it's the effect of religion - basically Protestant in the US, and increasingly fundementalist - on politics and government.

Many fundamentalists in America FEAR the middle east, and that islamic invaders will drive christians out of America. On one hand I feel this is a highly irrational fear, since today's society has reached an integrity and diversity not to let such a violent change occur, however the fear could be rational, since that is exactly how christianity arrived in the Americas.

Many fundamentalists in America FEAR the middle east, and that islamic invaders will drive christians out of America. On one hand I feel this is a highly irrational fear, since today's society has reached an integrity and diversity not to let such a violent change occur, however the fear could be rational, since that is exactly how christianity arrived in the Americas.

We-eell ... I don't honestly see boat-loads of Muslim warriors landing on our coasts and ravaging the countryside, enslaving the population and forcing everyone to convert. Some Islamic fundementalists certain dream of such an event, much the same as many Christians dream of converting the world.

Those who say that Christianity and other religions are based upon the idea of intolerance of non-practitioners are confusing the faith with the faithful. It is similar to anyone who gets their idea of communism from China.

I think the reason fundamentalism has become more of an issue recently is because now the United States is aware of of another group of fundamentalists, who have performed acts of terrorism on the United States and threaten to pull it down. There is a New Yorker article about the terrorists' leaders ideas for the future of their cause; one man has written a book outlining the stages the world will pass through before the United States and the rest of the West fall and a peaceful (ironically) Islamic state is set up. I think both factions are wrong; by focusing on middling details (and not so middling details) both have forgotten the big picture. But the awareness of other fundamentalists has given the American ones a new enemy (mainstream American culture can only provide so much material).

*sigh
I had been sincerely hoping for someone to at least try and tell me that's all just media-hype and a distorted picture that we here are getting.

The picture I'm getting is pretty disturbing to say the least, let alone very hard to understand or believe. Many sociologists will tell you that if you increase the wealth and the education of any given populace, their religious fervor will fade. Is that maybe where an attempt to reduce the numbers of fundamentalists could be aimed at? Provide them with better education and make sure that their standards of living are adequate?
I actually think you partly have it. Why is there more pop culture discussing religion today? Because it has become increasingly prevelant. Nazz said that it has been a constant upswing. That is definatly true, but there are peaks and valleys in any given generation. The 1980's, for America, were characterized by strong religious and moral tendancies. These faded quite a bit in the 90's. Now, my personal feeling is that we have reached a peak of their power for this decade. There will be a secular backlash soon.

What does this have to do with the TV you get from us? Well, it is giving a voice to the other side...the side not dictating politics and morals. Hollywood is known to be fairly heavily liberal...well, they are speaking out. It has never been a secret that artists react to their surrounding culture...this is their reaction

I look at it as something somewhat positive. It seems like this religious fit the nation has been in is coming to a close, and it gives me a glimmer of hope that the next decade won't suck as much as this one.

Those who say that Christianity and other religions are based upon the idea of intolerance of non-practitioners are confusing the faith with the faithful. It is similar to anyone who gets their idea of communism from China.

I think the reason fundamentalism has become more of an issue recently is because now the United States is aware of of another group of fundamentalists, who have performed acts of terrorism on the United States and threaten to pull it down. There is a New Yorker article about the terrorists' leaders ideas for the future of their cause; one man has written a book outlining the stages the world will pass through before the United States and the rest of the West fall and a peaceful (ironically) Islamic state is set up. I think both factions are wrong; by focusing on middling details (and not so middling details) both have forgotten the big picture. But the awareness of other fundamentalists has given the American ones a new enemy (mainstream American culture can only provide so much material).

Christian fundamentalism rose to its current levels within 5 years? I find that hard to believe to be honest.

Christian fundamentalism rose to its current levels within 5 years? I find that hard to believe to be honest.

I did not say it rose to its levels in five years (or did not mean to anyway). But the original post asked why it was such an issue, giving Simpson episodes as an example. Fundamentalism has existed for a long time, but most fundamentalists are fairly quiet people; a majority are not Pat Robertsons or Osama bin Ladens. However, many of these people "came out of hiding" when the United States was attacked by other fundamentalists, and that is why it seems like religion has recently become such an issue.

Fundamentalism (sociologically, anyways) is a reactionary response to some sort of perceived threat.

Take evolutionary theory, for example. When the theory was just beginning to become accepted in the scientific community and being placed in textbooks, etc., most Christian churches had no problem with it. Scientists lectured in churches all over the US, and practically no one complained.

But then some people (on both sides, I suppose) began to see evolutionary theory as an attempt or a means to disprove the Bible - to disprove God. At that point, it was viewed as an attack on religion and people began "fighting back." In the midst of that, much like many views will when the holder sees them as under attack, their views got pushed into more extreme areas than they had been before evolutionary theory was even devised.

Good question. The cynical part of me says that when people started to immigrate to the New World for "religious freedom," only the crazy ones came, leaving Europe with the sane Christians and we've been inbreeding ever since then.
I think that another reason is that American secularists seem to be more zealous than European secularists (just as American Christians are more zealous than Euros) in pushing Christian symbols and references out of the public sphere. It has allowed the fundies to consider themselves persecuted.

Whether the zealous secularists are right or not is not for me to decide nor do I want to debate US Constitutional law, but I suspect, from reading right-wing Christian diatribes, that it is a factor.

Provide them with better education and make sure that their standards of living are adequate?
The US education system is crap but I doubt there is any problem with standards of living. Most of the Christian right are probably filthy rich.

You know that the Puritans were persecuted in England for banning everything fun under Cromwell? Nice ancestors we have there, huh? :p
In my more vicious moments I like to call the US Christian right "neo-Cromwellians".

I actually think you partly have it. Why is there more pop culture discussing religion today? Because it has become increasingly prevelant. Nazz said that it has been a constant upswing. That is definatly true, but there are peaks and valleys in any given generation. The 1980's, for America, were characterized by strong religious and moral tendancies. These faded quite a bit in the 90's. Now, my personal feeling is that we have reached a peak of their power for this decade. There will be a secular backlash soon.

The only issue I take with this is "religous and moral tendencies."

There was nothing moral about the rise of religous fundamentalism in the 80's. That's why it fell so quickly. It was rife with corruption. That's why musicians had so many songs criticizing them. Off the top of my head:

Genesis - Jesus He Knows Me
Suicidal Tendencies - Send Me Your Money
Black Sabbath - TV Crimes

I'm sure there were many many more.

The only issue I take with this is "religous and moral tendencies."

There was nothing moral about the rise of religous fundamentalism in the 80's. That's why it fell so quickly. It was rife with corruption. That's why musicians had so many songs criticizing them. Off the top of my head:

Genesis - Jesus He Knows Me
Suicidal Tendencies - Send Me Your Money
Black Sabbath - TV Crimes

I'm sure there were many many more.

well, by "moral tendancies", I don't mean to imply their actions were moral...I'm talking more about putting stickers on albums and that kind of morally justified censorship

Doesn't sound anything like Christianity to me, actually.

Please, thats a PERFECT description of Xtianity. Islam as well. Most other Monotheistic religions as well.

Please, thats a PERFECT description of Xtianity. Islam as well. Most other Monotheistic religions as well.
No it is not. I know you can't stand religion, but please point out where Jesus and Mohammed said that that non-believers must be killed.

To my recollection Jesus spent time with the sinners and let them make their own choice.

No it is not. I know you can't stand religion, but please point out where Jesus and Mohammed said that that non-believers must be killed.

To my recollection Jesus spent time with the sinners and let them make their own choice.

Christianity is much more than just Jesus' teachings, as it Islam with Mohammed. The religions are also the associated dogmatic practices and teachings.
Christianity, for example, is more based off of Paul than Jesus himself.

Please, thats a PERFECT description of Xtianity. Islam as well. Most other Monotheistic religions as well.

No, it really isn't. As a Christian, I can say that it doesn't describe my religion at all. And I know Muslims, have spoken to them about their religion, and it doesn't describe their religion either. Doesn't describe the religions of my Jewish friends either.

Provide them with better education and make sure that their standards of living are adequate?

With the exceptions of a few movements in urban black communities, most fundamentalists are fairly comfortable. However, our school system is much too wishy-washy.

No, it really isn't. As a Christian, I can say that it doesn't describe my religion at all. And I know Muslims, have spoken to them about their religion, and it doesn't describe their religion either. Doesn't describe the religions of my Jewish friends either.
Denial or ignorance.
Fundamentalism is Abrahamic religion in its purest form. It is the ultimate result of a spiritual society unchallenged by serious, competent and relevant detractors.

It doesn't seem like anyone in this thread knows what they're talking about.

It's very simple. The Christian religon is becoming more noticable today because it is being attacked so rigorusly. The Muslims want to take over the world and force everyone to pull out their prayer rugs and pray to Mecca 5 times a day. I just don't have time for that shit.

The athiests want to remove any mention or symbol of Christianity from public view. They talk about "separation of church and state" like it's part of the constition. It's not.

The US Constition has ONE sentence about religon,

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

That's it. Where you get separation of church and state from that, I can't even imagine.:headbang:

So, yes we are fighting back. We are raising our voices to be heard. We will NOT be drowned by the noise from all of the dissenters.

You are free to believe anything you want. Just don't mess with what I believe in.

Denial or ignorance.
Fundamentalism is Abrahamic religion in its purest form. It is the ultimate result of a spiritual society unchallenged by serious, competent and relevant detractors.
Fundamentalism is not unique to Abrahamic religions. Believe it or not there are right-wing bigoted Buddhists as well.

Fundamentalism is patriarchy in its purest form. Jesus didn't behave in a very "fundamentalist" way.

Denial or ignorance.

You're right. I'm the one telling you what *I* believe. But when you tell me I believe something else, I'm the one who is ignorant.

Are you also the king of France?

Fundamentalism is Abrahamic religion in its purest form.

Not from a sociological viewpoint. Sociologically, fundamentalism describes a reactionary movement in a religion that focuses on some portion of the religious views the believers see as being under attack. Said believers generally know little about the history of their religion, nor do they actually focus on a pure form. Generally, the portions of religion they view as being "under attack" are not integral portions of the religion at all.

It is the ultimate result of a spiritual society unchallenged by serious, competent and relevant detractors.

Actually, it is the result of a group of people of little faith who see themselves as being under attack (if we are talking about fundamentalism in a sociological sense, anyways). Challenge, mixed with weak faith and an unwillingness to question, drives fundamentalism forward. If faith was never challenged, fundamentalism could not develop.

No it is not. I know you can't stand religion, but please point out where Jesus and Mohammed said that that non-believers must be killed.

To my recollection Jesus spent time with the sinners and let them make their own choice.

I never mentioned the teachings of Christ or Mohamed. I just mentioned xtianity and Islam, niether of which bear musch resemblence to thos teachings anymore.

No, it really isn't. As a Christian, I can say that it doesn't describe my religion at all. And I know Muslims, have spoken to them about their religion, and it doesn't describe their religion either. Doesn't describe the religions of my Jewish friends either.

I did not single out any one xtian or muslim. I mentioned those religions as a whole. I also mentioned monotheistic religions as a whole as well.

No it is not. I know you can't stand religion, but please point out where Jesus and Mohammed said that that non-believers must be killed.

To my recollection Jesus spent time with the sinners and let them make their own choice.

I don't know why people on here hate religion so much.:confused:

all the stuff they usually cite happened over 200 years ago, crusades, inquisition, etc. etc. religion is ok, as long as it doesnt become a government.

The athiests want to remove any mention or symbol of Christianity from public view. They talk about "separation of church and state" like it's part of the constition. It's not.

The US Constition has ONE sentence about religon,

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

That's it. Where you get separation of church and state from that, I can't even imagine.:headbang:

Well, let's see, maybe it's:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Read through the 14th Amendment, which applied the bill of rights to the state and local governments as well, this means that the government cannot establish a state religion. Supporting one religion over all others establishes a state religion, by making that religion more acceptable in the eyes of the state.

You are free to believe anything you want. Just don't mess with what I believe in.

When you push for your personal religion to be supported by the government, it is you who are trying to mess with what others believe in.

I did not single out any one xtian or muslim. I mentioned those religions as a whole. I also mentioned monotheistic religions as a whole as well.

You cannot talk about "those religions as a whole," without including each and every individual person who holds to those religions. Since every single person who does so will have at least slightly different beliefs, it is nearly impossible to ascribe most beliefs to "Christianity as a whole," "Islam as a whole," or especially, "Monotheistic religion as a whole." At best, you've got, "Believe in one God."

If even a single Christian does not agree with what you claimed "described Christianity", then you are wrong in stating that it describes the religion as a whole. And since the vast majority would disagree with all or some of that statement, you aren't even making a logical generalization.

It doesn't seem like anyone in this thread knows what they're talking about.great opening. Insult everyone in the thread, even those who might take your side. A+ strategy.

It's very simple. The Christian religon is becoming more noticable today because it is being attacked so rigorusly. The Muslims want to take over the world and force everyone to pull out their prayer rugs and pray to Mecca 5 times a day. I just don't have time for that shit.A) Christianity is not without blood on its hands here, even in the modern era. B)I have never had a muslim try to convert me. Not one. And this includes having visited several mosques.

The athiests want to remove any mention or symbol of Christianity from public view. They talk about "separation of church and state" like it's part of the constition. It's not.

The US Constition has ONE sentence about religon,

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

That's it. Where you get separation of church and state from that, I can't even imagine.:headbang: You forget the 200 years of Supreme Court rulings that have established and enforced, time and time again, without fail, a seperation of Church and State. What, are you unable to pray in your own home or in church? Hell, you can even pray on public grounds, as long as it isn't funded by the state.

So, yes we are fighting back. We are raising our voices to be heard. We will NOT be drowned by the noise from all of the dissenters.Please. You are the majority. And not a slim majority. We are talking 80% of the population identifying itself as "Christian" of some form. You are hardly oppressed.

You are free to believe anything you want. Just don't mess with what I believe in.So I take it you would be against having a mandatory time to pray to Allah?

Fundamentalism is not unique to Abrahamic religions. Believe it or not there are right-wing bigoted Buddhists as well.
I don’t doubt it. Religion is a cancer, but I am much more familiar with Western history.
Fundamentalism is patriarchy in its purest form. Jesus didn't behave in a very "fundamentalist" way.
Abrahamic religion= Patriarchy
Jesus was not a fundamentalist, but his spiritualism led to it in a rather short amount of time.
You're right. I'm the one telling you what *I* believe. But when you tell me I believe something else, I'm the one who is ignorant.

Pardon. I did not mean to say that you do not know what you yourself believe, but you’re beliefs lead to fundamentalism in others. The moderates keep spirituality alive in between bouts of fundamentalism.
Not from a sociological viewpoint. Sociologically, fundamentalism describes a reactionary movement in a religion that focuses on some portion of the religious views the believers see as being under attack. Said believers generally know little about the history of their religion, nor do they actually focus on a pure form. Generally, the portions of religion they view as being "under attack" are not integral portions of the religion at all.
According to you. You see, this is what makes spirituality dangerous. Anyone can claim any interpretation they want and then get a bunch of nutcases to follow them. There is no objectivity. No oversight.
Actually, it is the result of a group of people of little faith who see themselves as being under attack (if we are talking about fundamentalism in a sociological sense, anyways). Challenge, mixed with weak faith and an unwillingness to question, drives fundamentalism forward. If faith was never challenged, fundamentalism could not develop.
Without people challenging faith, we'd still be living under Kings with Devine Right to Rule.

Well if you consider the fact that the US is a nation within nations (many people from all around the world), you have to forshadow increase in religion and spirituality. For instance, take Latin Americans, Africans or Asians which are highly religion oriented. I must admit Christianity and Catholicism always get more attention and have more "publicity" than any other.

Pardon. I did not mean to say that you do not know what you yourself believe, but you’re beliefs lead to fundamentalism in others.

This is such a silly statement, I'm not quite sure how to respond.

Do my moderate political views cause others to be extremists as well?

Does my belief that we should not mistreat animals cause PETA and even more extremist groups to exist? Does it cause vegans?

The moderates keep spirituality alive in between bouts of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism is always around, as there are always those weak of faith.

According to you.

Even according to them. Even most fundamentalists (with the possible exception of Phelps and crew) won't claim that "God hates fags," is an integral part of Christianity or that Christian doctrine spends much time on it.

However, it things like that which fundamentalists focus on.

You see, this is what makes spirituality dangerous. Anyone can claim any interpretation they want and then get a bunch of nutcases to follow them. There is no objectivity. No oversight.

In that case, all of philosophy outside of science is "dangerous".

Without people challenging faith, we'd still be living under Kings with Devine Right to Rule.

Indeed, which is why faith should be challenged. But when you have those who are unwilling to question their faith, but are challenged nonetheless, you find fundamentalism.

It's sort of like asking a person who was raised to vote Democrat and always Democrat - and has done so for all their life - why they are voting for a particular candidate. The first response will be, "I vote Democrat." If you try to push further than that, the person is likely to get very defensive and probably downright mean.

The Christian religon is becoming more noticable today because it is being attacked so rigorusly.
I know that secularists are zealous in America, but it's quite the exaggeration to claim that Christians are being "attacked rigourously".

I don’t doubt it. Religion is a cancer, but I am much more familiar with Western history.
Religion is not a cancer.

Without it we would probably be living by "pillage, burn and take what you want" or "fuck the victims" values.

Religion is not a cancer.

Without it we would probably be living by "pillage, burn and take what you want" or "fuck the victims" values.
No. Human beings are capable of ethics without religion. It can either derive from a secular authority or thier own human compulsions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that all human beings are sociopaths and that all atheists are potential murders and thieves.
Are you saying that the only reason you don't hurt others is because of devine authority?
This is such a silly statement, I'm not quite sure how to respond.

Do my moderate political views cause others to be extremists as well?

Does my belief that we should not mistreat animals cause PETA and even more extremist groups to exist? Does it cause vegans?
As I said, you keep the faith alive.
Fundamentalism is always around, as there are always those weak of faith.
As long as spirituality exists. Personally, I don't think that your self delusion and inability to deal with oblivion is worth the risk to all our rights.
In that case, all of philosophy outside of science is "dangerous".
Yes! Only objective observation of what works should be the basis for any society.

Religion is not a cancer.

Without it we would probably be living by "pillage, burn and take what you want" or "fuck the victims" values.

This mentality scares me just as much as the, "OMFG, ALL RELIGOUS PEOPLE ARE TEH EVIL!" mentality.

Is your religion really all that keeps you from doing these things? If so, you're not a person I want to be around in the first place?

As I said, you keep the faith alive.

One person cannot keep faith alive for another.

As long as spirituality exists. Personally, I don't think that your self delusion and inability to deal with oblivion is worth the risk to all our rights.

Then you don't deserve those rights in the first place. If you are willing to put them up for auction, you shouldn't have them.

Yes! Only objective observation of what works should be a basis for any society.

I see. You do realize that science devloped out of philosophy and that, without it, we wouldn't have the scientific method?

You do realize that discussions of ethics come from philosophy?

There's been a steady increase in fundamentalism and biblical-literalism in the US as a percentage of the population since the founding of the republic. Kevin Phillips documents it pretty well in the book American Theocracy. I've studied religion for quite a while now and I was amazed by just how steady the rise has been.

So it's not just your imagination. Fundamentalists have been getting not only louder and more influential, but have been increasing in number for quite a while now, to the point where Phillips refers to the current Republican party as the first major theocratic party in US politics.


I don't believe they truely are a major theocratic party. They just see it as the way to get the most votes right now. Politicians always tell you what they think the majority of voters want, but they seldom follow through after they have what they wanted.

This mentality scares me just as much as the, "OMFG, ALL RELIGOUS PEOPLE ARE TEH EVIL!" mentality.

Is your religion really all that keeps you from doing these things? If so, you're not a person I want to be around in the first place?

in Meath's defense, Ethics do have some religious roots, the incentive back in the middle ages to be an ethical person was the fear of a divine smack-down if you acted unethically and yes, many of society's basic laws have religious roots, the 10 commandments

The reason religion has become such an issue, is that fundies, both Islamic and Christian, are making a lot of noise lately, probably due to the feeling that they are being attacked. In essence, secularism is slowly replacing religion, and some people are resisting this trend. After all, once humans evolve beyond the need to believe in "God", then they evolve beyond the need for priests, who then would actually have to go out and become productive members of society. No one wants to give up a cushy (and powerfull) job like that.

I should also note, that there is a rise in what could be considered even more fundemental belief systems that supposedly pre-date islam and xtianity. I.E paganism in various forms. Also a form of resistance to secularism.

in Meath's defense, Ethics do have some religious roots, the incentive back in the middle ages to be an ethical person was the fear of a divine smack-down if you acted unethically and yes, many of society's basic laws have religious roots, the 10 commandments
Really? let's see...

1. have no other gods before Lord god
nope, no law there.

2. Do not make idols
nope

3. Do not take the lords name in vain
God damn it, still no.

4. Keep the sabbath
nope

5. Honor your parents
nope

6. Do not murder
Yep. We have 1!

7. Do not commit adultery
nope.

8. Do not steal
Woohoo! 2!

9. Do not falsely accuse
hmm...well, if done some ways, that is libel or slander...but not always. We'll give it half. 2.5!

10. Do not covet.
nope.


two and a half out of ten. Not so hot.

Ok, now, the first thing I have to make clear here is that I'm only reporting personal impressions and subjective notions.
But I can't help feeling that religion is becoming more and more of an issue in the US at the moment.

I notice the amount of time it's being brought up here, in most cases by citizens of the US. Not exclusively, but noticeably so.
In the past couple months, I've seen more and more Simpsons episodes dealing with religion as their main topic (Bart becoming catholic, Lisa rallying against creationism, ...) I'm sure they are most likely not the newest ones, but it was the first time I've ever seen them in here in Europe.
The discussion about teaching creationsim as science. The whole notion of creationism as such! I'd never before so much as heard the word.

Now, none of this is proof that there is an increased focus on religion or even an increase in religious fundamentalism, and I'd be more than grateful if some US Americans could tell me I'm completely and utterly wrong....
But what's with all this bible thumping lately? :confused:

Karl. Rove. He's Bush's political strategist, and frankly has done a quite phenomenal job of getting Bush well-founded in the religious far right. I think the Republican party has realized that they have nothing else they can sell themselves on except the fact that they pretend to be Christian.

This mentality scares me just as much as the, "OMFG, ALL RELIGOUS PEOPLE ARE TEH EVIL!" mentality.

Is your religion really all that keeps you from doing these things? If so, you're not a person I want to be around in the first place?
No, I feel the need to help other people from deep within myself. But that came not from nature but from my culture. Same with you and atheists as well.

Without religion I have no reason to believe that a culture of charity would ever have been fostered.

No. Human beings are capable of ethics without religion. It can either derive from a secular authority or thier own human compulsions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that all human beings are sociopaths and that all atheists are potential murders and thieves.

Most atheists are more influenced by Christian philosophy than anything else.

It's impossible to know how people would behave nowadays if Christianity had not taken root. But I think it might be worse than today.

After all, once humans evolve beyond the need to believe in "God", then they evolve beyond the need for priests, who then would actually have to go out and become productive members of society. No one wants to give up a cushy (and powerfull) job like that.
Priests and such as not all a bunch of powerful patriarchs. Many of them fight for freedom and for the interests of other people, and many are persecuted for it. Ever heard of Oscar Romero?

Then you don't deserve those rights in the first place. If you are willing to put them up for auction, you shouldn't have them.
Up for auction? I simply beleive that religion should be severely limited so that it can not spawn fundementalists movements.

Sure, some reactionary groups might form, but if children are taught from a young age in state schools that God is the same as the tooth fairy, if adults are prohibited from bringing minors to church, if churches are heavily taxed, and if all these things are introduced gradually, then I and other freedom loving individuals need not fear them.

I see. You do realize that science devloped out of philosophy and that, without it, we wouldn't have the scientific method?
But it isn't a philosophy now. Idealism and spirituality are obsolete.
You do realize that discussions of ethics come from philosophy?
Ethics can be easily explained through evolution.

No, I feel the need to help other people from deep within myself. But that came not from nature but from my culture. Same with you and atheists as well.

Without religion I have no reason to believe that a culture of charity would ever have been fostered.


And we have no reason to believe that it would not have been fostered

And we have no reason to believe that it would not have been fosteredActually, I think it would have been fostered regardless, because it's beneficial to societies to have charitable organizations, and regardless of what the driving force is behind a benefit, if a thing is beneficial, chances are it's going to develop in one form or another. It's the same sort of thing Robert Wright talked about in Nonzero. There's a biological metaphor, if you will--sight is an evolutionary benefit, so sight develops. In fact, it developed about a dozen ways, and took different paths to achieve the same end result. Charity is the same way--it's a societal good, so it'll develop, regardless of the manner in which it gets to the same end result.

Actually, I think it would have been fostered regardless, because it's beneficial to societies to have charitable organizations, and regardless of what the driving force is behind a benefit, if a thing is beneficial, chances are it's going to develop in one form or another. It's the same sort of thing Robert Wright talked about in Nonzero. There's a biological metaphor, if you will--sight is an evolutionary benefit, so sight develops. In fact, it developed about a dozen ways, and took different paths to achieve the same end result. Charity is the same way--it's a societal good, so it'll develop, regardless of the manner in which it gets to the same end result.

I happen to agree

Radical Muslims are rewening the earth

No, I feel the need to help other people from deep within myself. But that came not from nature but from my culture. Same with you and atheists as well.

So empathy comes simply from culture? I highly doubt it. I think our cultures formed around our ability to empathize, not the other way around. And the urge to help others (as well as quite a bit of the morals and ethics that are generally shared) come from empathy.

Without religion I have no reason to believe that a culture of charity would ever have been fostered.

If it cannot be fostered without the prodding of, "God tells you so," then it isn't truly being fostered at all. It is not charity to help other people, but is instead charity to impress other people and/or God.

Most atheists are more influenced by Christian philosophy than anything else.

Depends on where they are, but this is perhaps true. And Christian philosophy was influenced by other philosophies (both Plato and Aristotle played a huge role in determining Christian theology, depending on the the theologian you're studying).


Up for auction? I simply beleive that religion should be severely limited so that it can not spawn fundementalists movements.

...which makes about as much sense as saying Libertarianism should be limited so that it cannot spawn anarchist movements.

Sure, some reactionary groups might form, but if children are taught from a young age in state schools that God is the same as the tooth fairy,

....so you wish to teach children something that is completely non-objective and cannot be backed with evidence? Essentially, you want to take your own viewpoint, which has no more or less evidence than the viewpoint contrary to your own, and force it upon everyone?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

if adults are prohibited from bringing minors to church, if churches are heavily taxed, and if all these things are introduced gradually, then I and other freedom loving individuals need not fear them.

The fact that you can say that with a straight-face is truly amusing. It's like saying, "If we start arresting everyone who doesn't like the government, as long as we do it slowly, freedom loving individuals need not fear them."

You are proscribing the opposite of freedom, and then attributing it to being "freedom-loving."

But it isn't a philosophy now.

Of course it is. It is a specific subset of philosophy. Even science is based in axioms that are merely assumed.

Idealism and spirituality are obsolete.

In your opinion. Do you really think you have the right to force that upon others?

You are, quite simply, exactly like a religious fundamentalist who wishes to force religion upon the masses.

Ethics can be easily explained through evolution.

Some can, but not all. Not to mention that we can study history and watch ethics "evolve" through the use of philosophy.

relgion is the one of the things that can get people worked up the most and the fastest. I dont believe in any god one way or another, but I find it imensly funny that if you look closely at all of the major religions the basic rule is I shal not harm others. Yet Religion is one of the leading reasons people have gone to war threw out history. Can some one please tell me how that is not bringing harm to others? cause the logic escapes me.

Ok, now, the first thing I have to make clear here is that I'm only reporting personal impressions and subjective notions.
But I can't help feeling that religion is becoming more and more of an issue in the US at the moment.

I notice the amount of time it's being brought up here, in most cases by citizens of the US. Not exclusively, but noticeably so.
In the past couple months, I've seen more and more Simpsons episodes dealing with religion as their main topic (Bart becoming catholic, Lisa rallying against creationism, ...) I'm sure they are most likely not the newest ones, but it was the first time I've ever seen them in here in Europe.
The discussion about teaching creationsim as science. The whole notion of creationism as such! I'd never before so much as heard the word.

Now, none of this is proof that there is an increased focus on religion or even an increase in religious fundamentalism, and I'd be more than grateful if some US Americans could tell me I'm completely and utterly wrong....
But what's with all this bible thumping lately? :confused:
lol, i saw that episode like 2 if not 3 years ago!
Ned Flanders running the Super Bowl was awesome too.

Sure back then i thought the same thing too.
*Still isn't American*

Radical Muslims are rewening the earth
Is that Renewing or Ruining?:D

in Meath's defense, Ethics do have some religious roots, the incentive back in the middle ages to be an ethical person was the fear of a divine smack-down if you acted unethically and yes, many of society's basic laws have religious roots, the 10 commandments

Funny you should mention that... a while ago I had opened a thread questioning the claim that Western ethics and legal systems have their roots in religion, or, more precisely, the 10 commandments. Have a look here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497453).

It turns out that there are exactly two commandments that are reflected in today's legislation, and another two that maybe can be argued to possibly have influenced two general laws.
However, if you look at the commandments in question and compare the resulting laws with secular laws that existed before Christianity emerged or took over, you'll find that the very same laws existed in societies that had never heard of the bible, for example early Germanic legislation, Roman and Greek legislation, etc.

The logical conclusion is that ethics does not have its roots in religion, but can and does exist quiet independently of it.

...which makes about as much sense as saying Libertarianism should be limited so that it cannot spawn anarchist movements.
Spirituality is a unique threat to human comfort and can not be compared to anything else.
....so you wish to teach children something that is completely non-objective and cannot be backed with evidence? Essentially, you want to take your own viewpoint, which has no more or less evidence than the viewpoint contrary to your own, and force it upon everyone?

Simply teach them not to believe anything that can't be objectively proven. Teach them the extent that people can delude themselves. That is all.
The fact that you can say that with a straight-face is truly amusing. It's like saying, "If we start arresting everyone who doesn't like the government, as long as we do it slowly, freedom loving individuals need not fear them."
As I said, spirituality is a unique threat. Those that dislike the government tend, more often than not, to agitate for greater freedoms. Religious activists are nearly always trying to keep someone down, and they aren't above using moderates of dull minds to reach their goals.
You are proscribing the opposite of freedom, and then attributing it to being "freedom-loving."

The absence of religious influence is freedom, not just in the political sense but in the sense that applies to one's lifestyle.
Of course it is. It is a specific subset of philosophy. Even science is based in axioms that are merely assumed.
Science does not degrade the human condition.
In your opinion. Do you really think you have the right to force that upon others?
I think others do. It's for the greater good.
You are, quite simply, exactly like a religious fundamentalist who wishes to force religion upon the masses.
Religious fundamentalists want people to live in misery, always wondering if they're good enough according to outdated customs. I want people to live in contentment in the way that they see fit.
Some can, but not all. Not to mention that we can study history and watch ethics "evolve" through the use of philosophy.
Only because those ideas were discovered to work better than others. So, yes, a natural selection of ideas is evident and will eventually make religion irrelevant, probably in the coming century, at least in the West.

Funny you should mention that... a while ago I had opened a thread questioning the claim that Western ethics and legal systems have their roots in religion, or, more precisely, the 10 commandments. Have a look here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497453).

It turns out that there are exactly two commandments that are reflected in today's legislation, and another two that maybe can be argued to possibly have influenced two general laws.
However, if you look at the commandments in question and compare the resulting laws with secular laws that existed before Christianity emerged or took over, you'll find that the very same laws existed in societies that had never heard of the bible, for example early Germanic legislation, Roman and Greek legislation, etc.

The logical conclusion is that ethics does not have its roots in religion, but can and does exist quiet independently of it.

You definetely have a case for the 10 commandments, but I still stand by the first part of my post. Modern society can and does practice secular ethics, but that is because these religion based ethics have become so ingrained(for better or for worse) in our society as a whole, they have become one with each other. Today, its common knowledge you should not murder another human being, but back before judaism this was not so absolute. Theres also the question of societies not touched by judeo-christian religion, such as the aztecs where murder became part of the rituals of their religion. Also the Indian thugs, religious highway robbers devoted to Kali, hindu consort of shiva and goddess of death and judgement, they believed murder was a natural part of their religion. They had ritualised roles for different gang members to play in the murders of wealthy merchants. The reason people in judeo-christian societies had such an aversion to murder and thievery, is that they feared divine retribution in the afterlife.

(It's also a criticism of Islam from the 7th century to about the 10th century, and from the 19th century to the present...but no one seems to read that part.)

Do so and you are labeled a racist.

You definetely have a case for the 10 commandments, but I still stand by the first part of my post. Modern society can and does practice secular ethics, but that is because these religion based ethics have become so ingrained(for better or for worse) in our society as a whole, they have become one with each other. Today, its common knowledge you should not murder another human being, but back before judaism this was not so absolute. Theres also the question of societies not touched by judeo-christian religion, such as the aztecs where murder became part of the rituals of their religion. Also the Indian thugs, religious highway robbers devoted to Kali, hindu consort of shiva and goddess of death and judgement, they believed murder was a natural part of their religion. They had ritualised roles for different gang members to play in the murders of wealthy merchants. The reason people in judeo-christian societies had such an aversion to murder and thievery, is that they feared divine retribution in the afterlife.

But it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look, that secular morality leads religous morality. It's just that religous moralists shout all the louder for being ignored.

But once the religous moralists give ground they then claim that it was their position all along.

e.g. I read a review about some childrens' mermaid movie on the right-wing christian website movieguide.org. It cautioned that the movie contained a "pagan world view in respect for nature, but also some elements of a Christian world view in respect for family." That sent my head spinning.

In Genesis "thou shalt have dominion over the earth," means that we are responsible to take care of it. It was not written at a time when kings were all powerful. In fact later the Jews are punished for wanting a king by getting attacked by the Assyrians who view their new centralized government as a threat. If Christianity counts as both the OT and the NT then respect for nature is one of the first things we are commanded to show.

As for "respect for family..." yes, it's in the OT that "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother," but in the NT it says "no man who hateth not his father may be with me." The OT written for family conscious Jews demands complete obedience to ones parents. The NT which was written to replace traditional Judaism encourages people to abandon their families when their own beliefs and those of their families come into conflict.

IOW Christians don't have any idea what parts of their moral belief system comes from their religion and what part comes from the secular society that, like it or not, they are a part.

Most atheists are more influenced by Christian philosophy than anything else.

"Christian philosophy" is such a broad term that it is meaningless.

Which particular aspects of "Christian philosophy" do you speak of?

"Christian philosophy" is such a broad term that it is meaningless.

Which particular aspects of "Christian philosophy" do you speak of?

The ironic bit in Corinthians where it's "love of wisdom" (the literal meaning of the word philosophy) is demonstrated with a long diatribe about how you shouldn't listen to wise people because "God shall make foolish the wisdom of the wise."

That bit's classic. A Misophic philosophy.

i feel its not the religion but the people.. its human to get so worked up and be consumed in whatever you believe in. Religion was used to justify wars of agression in the past because it was the most powerful moral force then... but really the crusades werent abt religion... the kinghts were more intrested in carving estates out of conqured palestine. but anyhooves... things do change.. generally ppl go to war for greed, belief, faith and defending or imposing your way of life on others be it religious or not. the french revolutionary and napoleonic wars... mainly catholic country but secular government (after all revolutionary france did outlaw the worship of God in 1793 i think but Napoleon only restored in th 1800) or how abt the cold war(i.e the proxy wars), it was a war on ideology... beliefs and imposing ways of life, pretty much the same with say the crusades... and more recently the iraq and afghan war... war on the belief of liberty and freedom and most important to the money minded ppl of our time... free markets and contracts... this time liberation ad freedom was used to justify the war.. pretty much the same way religion was used say 300 yaers. and clearly from this relgion is not the cause for war but crazy people who use them... the same way crazy ppl use ideology like 'freedom' today simply because today that hasthe 'moral authority'. and to the guy like 4 pages ago that talks abt ioslam wanting to take over the world and force ppl to pray 5 times a day facing mecca... firstly islam deos not want to take over the world.. even the Osama only want muslim majority countries and he attacks the US cuz he wants the US to get out of there.... and if we really want to convert the world.. we would have done a better and more effcient job of converting thoseformally under our rule and we would have not appointed jewish/christian minsters or officials and there wont be christians in Syria, palestine, egypt and lebnon, thirdly converting ppl to islam regardless of what the terrorist say (they just want to look legitimate, a desperate attempt though) is not a major thrust in islam like evenlagicalism is to christianity, we belief if u convert... good for u.. if u dun we dun lose... God does not lose and u can live an unrestricted life on earth doing pretty much wadever you want as compared to us stupid ppl who loves to draw lines so as to control our human urges and lastly... prayer is a personal thing. even if an islamic government were to come to power, islamic jurispundence does not give it the power to force someone to pray at gun point... its either u pray or u dun its ur personal relationship with god... and juz sum basic info... even the Saudi monarchy and thier royal sons do miss htier prayers.. go drinking and gamble... pretty much all that is not legal in islam and they claim to run an islamic governmetn... wow

Is it because people take the tenents of the religion to extreme lengths? Or maybe a singular person/small group exploiting a people's faith and telling them what to believe and/or do?


^ Main reason why I am a Christian, not a Catholic or Protestant. I don't believe that you should believe what someone tells you, but what you interpret for yourself from the Bible.

But it's pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look, that secular morality leads religous morality. It's just that religous moralists shout all the louder for being ignored.

But once the religous moralists give ground they then claim that it was their position all along.

e.g. I read a review about some childrens' mermaid movie on the right-wing christian website movieguide.org. It cautioned that the movie contained a "pagan world view in respect for nature, but also some elements of a Christian world view in respect for family." That sent my head spinning.

In Genesis "thou shalt have dominion over the earth," means that we are responsible to take care of it. It was not written at a time when kings were all powerful. In fact later the Jews are punished for wanting a king by getting attacked by the Assyrians who view their new centralized government as a threat. If Christianity counts as both the OT and the NT then respect for nature is one of the first things we are commanded to show.

As for "respect for family..." yes, it's in the OT that "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother," but in the NT it says "no man who hateth not his father may be with me." The OT written for family conscious Jews demands complete obedience to ones parents. The NT which was written to replace traditional Judaism encourages people to abandon their families when their own beliefs and those of their families come into conflict.

IOW Christians don't have any idea what parts of their moral belief system comes from their religion and what part comes from the secular society that, like it or not, they are a part.

I agree with most of this post, christian morality is obsolete in the modern world. My question was not answered though. Do you believe we would have developed our system of ethics without the aid of religion? I say no.

You definetely have a case for the 10 commandments, but I still stand by the first part of my post. Modern society can and does practice secular ethics, but that is because these religion based ethics have become so ingrained(for better or for worse) in our society as a whole, they have become one with each other. Today, its common knowledge you should not murder another human being, but back before judaism this was not so absolute. Theres also the question of societies not touched by judeo-christian religion, such as the aztecs where murder became part of the rituals of their religion. Also the Indian thugs, religious highway robbers devoted to Kali, hindu consort of shiva and goddess of death and judgement, they believed murder was a natural part of their religion. They had ritualised roles for different gang members to play in the murders of wealthy merchants. The reason people in judeo-christian societies had such an aversion to murder and thievery, is that they feared divine retribution in the afterlife.

Insitutionalised killing still is part of the Western world and ethics. There are countries that still have capital punishment, we still go to war. We just no longer try to link religion to it.

We abhor "murder", that much is true. But we don't generally object to killing, at least society on the whole doesn't. And murder is actually only killing in very finely specified circumstances. I would be very surprised indeed if Aztec society had had no laws against murder, or rather certain forms of killing.
Every civilisation in history has had those, they are vital to the structure of society. Very much like property laws (regarding the commandment not to steal), laws regarding family structures (regarding marriage, and parent-children relationshis) and laws regarding false evidence in court (those were particularly strict in Germanic societies, even moreso than in Judaism).

I agree with most of this post, christian morality is obsolete in the modern world. My question was not answered though. Do you believe we would have developed our system of ethics without the aid of religion? I say no.

Ethics have evolved without the aid of religion all over the world, and the basics are the same everywhere : Treat others the way you want to be treated.
You can find that basic concept from Arabia to Tibet, and from Skandinavia to New Zealand.

Most atheists are more influenced by Christian philosophy than anything else.


Atheist, most likely. After all, atheism is the firm believe that god doesn't exist. Like Chrisiantiy (or any other religion), this claim is without proof and relies on belief and faith alone.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, refuses to believe in either existance nor non-existance of god.

Oh, and what particular brand of Christian philosophy are you referring to?

You definetely have a case for the 10 commandments, but I still stand by the first part of my post. Modern society can and does practice secular ethics, but that is because these religion based ethics have become so ingrained(for better or for worse) in our society as a whole, they have become one with each other. Today, its common knowledge you should not murder another human being, but back before judaism this was not so absolute. Theres also the question of societies not touched by judeo-christian religion, such as the aztecs where murder became part of the rituals of their religion. Also the Indian thugs, religious highway robbers devoted to Kali, hindu consort of shiva and goddess of death and judgement, they believed murder was a natural part of their religion. They had ritualised roles for different gang members to play in the murders of wealthy merchants. The reason people in judeo-christian societies had such an aversion to murder and thievery, is that they feared divine retribution in the afterlife.
Do you realize that, in this post, you just implied that no non-Judeo-Christian culture has any morals whatsoever? Do you really want to be saying that? Do you really want to characterize all polytheistic religions as violent and immoral and all their believers as killers and theives, or all polytheistic cultures (such as Hindu India or Shintoist Japan) as lawless, dangerous gangs that kill and steal without concern? Do you have any idea how offensive (as well as ignorant) that is?

Do you also really, honestly believe that the ONLY reason Jews and Christians "have an aversion to murder and theivery" is because they are scared of what will happen to them after they are dead? Do you have any idea how terrifying that world view is?

So empathy comes simply from culture? I highly doubt it. I think our cultures formed around our ability to empathize, not the other way around. And the urge to help others (as well as quite a bit of the morals and ethics that are generally shared) come from empathy.

If it cannot be fostered without the prodding of, "God tells you so," then it isn't truly being fostered at all. It is not charity to help other people, but is instead charity to impress other people and/or God.

No, I mean that I credit religion for permeating the Golden Rule throughout western society.

And we have no reason to believe that it would not have been fostered
Where did "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" come from? Greek philosophy?

Up for auction? I simply beleive that religion should be severely limited so that it can not spawn fundementalists movements.

Sure, some reactionary groups might form, but if children are taught from a young age in state schools that God is the same as the tooth fairy, if adults are prohibited from bringing minors to church, if churches are heavily taxed, and if all these things are introduced gradually, then I and other freedom loving individuals need not fear them.
It sounds like you're not only trying to kill fundamentalism, but trying also to kill religion in general.

Radical Muslims are rewening the earth
The sheer idiocy displayed by that typo...


Which particular aspects of "Christian philosophy" do you speak of?
Helping other people, tolerating their beliefs, not being judgemental and other such tenets.

Insitutionalised killing still is part of the Western world and ethics. There are countries that still have capital punishment, we still go to war.
Not in Europe.

Ethics have evolved without the aid of religion all over the world, and the basics are the same everywhere : Treat others the way you want to be treated.
You can find that basic concept from Arabia to Tibet, and from Skandinavia to New Zealand.
All those places had religion whether it was Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or others.

Your own beliefs about humility, helping other people and not judging others originate in the Christian/post-Christian culture that permeates Europe.

What of atheist tribes in the past? The Huns? Not exactly my idea of charity or tolerance.

Do you realize that, in this post, you just implied that no non-Judeo-Christian culture has any morals whatsoever?
Why do only Americans ever use the word "Judeo-Christian"? It's just bs, how PC can you get? Remember that the ten commandments are also found in Islam.

It sounds like you're not only trying to kill fundamentalism, but trying also to kill religion in general.
I don't deny that.

I don't deny that.
OK, but what about religious freedom? Face it, some, perhaps most people want to be allowed to follow a religion.

Helping other people, tolerating their beliefs, not being judgemental and other such tenets.

Oh, you mean "fairly universal moral doctrines that have appeared in a variety of religions and philosophies, pre-Christian and post-Christian, throughout history."

Not in Europe.

No, of course not....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars

All those places had religion whether it was Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or others.

Your own beliefs about humility, helping other people and not judging others originate in the Christian/post-Christian culture that permeates Europe.

What of atheist tribes in the past? The Huns? Not exactly my idea of charity or tolerance.



Tengriism, a monotheistic religion, replaced an earlier polytheistic Turkic religion; it was also the religion of the Huns, Eurasian Avars, early Hungarians and Bulgars.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengri)

Hardly.

The fact that all religions on the planet concern themselves with ethics in one form or another, despite their immense variety, combined with the fact that literally all religions end up promoting the same ethic principles simply proves my point that ethics are independent of whatever religion you decide to believe in.
Ethics are older than any form of religion, I would go so far as to say they are in our genetic programming. We are social animals, and as such we need rules for our societies to function. Those rules are precisely what constitutes our ethical beliefs.
Religion just gives them a bit of sparkle and a shallow pseudo-rational explanation, threatening inescapable consequences if the rules are broken.

The fact that all religions on the planet concern themselves with ethics in one form or another, despite their immense variety, combined with the fact that literally all religions end up promoting the same ethic principles simply proves my point that ethics are independent of whatever religion you decide to believe in.
Just noting that not all religions concern themselves with eithics, some ignore them compleately.

Just noting that not all religions concern themselves with eithics, some ignore them compleately.

AFAIK, they all concern themselves with human behaviour and interaction to some degree... which ones do you mean?

AFAIK, they all concern themselves with human behaviour and interaction to some degree... which ones do you mean?
Shintoism is the one I know the best, but it does not have a reward or punishment system, or anything close to a set of commandments. Hell, it doesn't really have any rules beyond rituals.

From what I know though, most religions developed to explain why the world is the way it is. Ethics came much later (possibly because it's hard to reconsile some of the stories about the gods with being moral? ;) ).

Shintoism is the one I know the best, but it does not have a reward or punishment system, or anything close to a set of commandments. Hell, it doesn't really have any rules beyond rituals.

From what I know though, most religions developed to explain why the world is the way it is. Ethics came much later (possibly because it's hard to reconsile some of the stories about the gods with being moral? ;) ).

I had a feeling you might mention that. ;)
But still, you could hardly go around claiming that Shintos don't have a set of morals, even though it does not relate to their religion in any way.
Japan has laws that make murder and stealing illegal, too, and they arrived at those laws without the help of the ten commandments. Without the help of religion, in fact.

The same can be said for the Greek gods... that was hardly exemplary behaviour on their part, ever. And yet the Greeks had laws, following the same general principles as our laws do now.

I had a feeling you might mention that. ;)
But still, you could hardly go around claiming that Shintos don't have a set of morals, even though it does not relate to their religion in any way.
Japan has laws that make murder and stealing illegal, too, and they arrived at those laws without the help of the ten commandments. Without the help of religion, in fact.

The same can be said for the Greek gods... that was hardly exemplary behaviour on their part, ever. And yet the Greeks had laws, following the same general principles as our laws do now.
Oh, sorry. Let me re-explain myself, I wasn't disagreeing with your point that ethics and morals can develop indpendently of religion, I was just pointing out that not ALL religions have a moral code.

In which case you're right, the codes develope seperately apart from said religions.

<snip>
Why do only Americans ever use the word "Judeo-Christian"? It's just bs, how PC can you get? Remember that the ten commandments are also found in Islam.
Why do some non-Americans get so bent out of shape by the way Americans talk? Do I make fun of your weird little idiosyncracies? Nope. I never even mention them.

"Judeo-Christian" is a commonly used descriptive that is inclusive of two specific religions -- Judaism and Christianity. I used it because the poster I was responding to used it to denigrate polytheist cultures. Since he hadn't seen fit to drag Islam into his little fest, I didn't think I should do it, either.

Why do some non-Americans get so bent out of shape by the way Americans talk? Do I make fun of your weird little idiosyncracies? Nope. I never even mention them.
Do you even know what they are?

Just sounded like you were claiming a Jewish and Christian monopoly on the ten commandments.

Islam has a less savoury (IMO) version of the ten, but they certainly have them.

Oh, you mean "fairly universal moral doctrines that have appeared in a variety of religions and philosophies, pre-Christian and post-Christian, throughout history."
Did they appear in Europe before Christianity?

No, of course not....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_wars
I meant the EU. Where capital punishment is banned universally and there hasn't been a war since 1945.

Institutionalised killing doesn't happen within our borders and war even outside is incredibly rare. With th epossible exception of Britain, European armies are now more peacekeeping style forces than imperialists.

Originally Posted by NERVUN
Shintoism is the one I know the best, but it does not have a reward or punishment system, or anything close to a set of commandments. Hell, it doesn't really have any rules beyond rituals.

From what I know though, most religions developed to explain why the world is the way it is. Ethics came much later (possibly because it's hard to reconsile some of the stories about the gods with being moral? ).
I had a feeling you might mention that. ;)
But still, you could hardly go around claiming that Shintos don't have a set of morals, even though it does not relate to their religion in any way.
Japan has laws that make murder and stealing illegal, too, and they arrived at those laws without the help of the ten commandments. Without the help of religion, in fact.

The same can be said for the Greek gods... that was hardly exemplary behaviour on their part, ever. And yet the Greeks had laws, following the same general principles as our laws do now.
FYI, it is not, strictly speaking, true that Shinto has no rules beyond rituals. What Shinto lacks is a codified system of taboos, some of which are rules that promote a "moral" life (like not killing people) and others of which are magical formulas to avoid pissing off god/spirits (like not eating fish on a Friday). Shinto is unusual among modern animist religions in this way. Most of them have such rules.

What Shinto does have, in common with other animist religions that have codified taboos, is a spiritual philosophy that says it is up to humans to maintain harmonious relationships with the spirits/universe around them or suffer the consequences of not doing so. If we want to put it into moralistic terms, we might say the morals of Shinto say, "Right and wrong make themselves obvious by experience," and "You lie in the bed you make."

Do you even know what they are?
I would never be so rude as to point them out. ;)

Just sounded like you were claiming a Jewish and Christian monopoly on the ten commandments.
You may be confusing me with the guy I was responding to. He seemed to be claiming a Jewish and Christian monopoly on MORALITY. That is what I was objecting to.

As for the 10 Commandments, you may have them and full credit for them. My religion handles that sort of stuff just fine in its own way.

Islam has a less savoury (IMO) version of the ten, but they certainly have them.
I know that.

FYI, it is not, strictly speaking, true that Shinto has no rules beyond rituals. What Shinto lacks is a codified system of taboos, some of which are rules that promote a "moral" life (like not killing people) and others of which are magical formulas to avoid pissing off god/spirits (like not eating fish on a Friday). Shinto is unusual among modern animist religions in this way. Most of them have such rules.

What Shinto does have, in common with other animist religions that have codified taboos, is a spiritual philosophy that says it is up to humans to maintain harmonious relationships with the spirits/universe around them or suffer the consequences of not doing so. If we want to put it into moralistic terms, we might say the morals of Shinto say, "Right and wrong make themselves obvious by experience," and "You lie in the bed you make."
To a point, but nowhere is this actually codified, as well as you would get very conflicting points of view from various shrines around Japan. Shinto was, and still is, worship of the natural world along with mythological stories about Japan's beginings. It's also a way to get good harvests, which is the main purpose of Shinto, even today.

From there, yes, you can say that Shinto teaching living in harmony with nature and the kami around you (A common theme in Japanese lit and movies is the fight between Old Japan's harmony and Modern Japan's technology), but it's hard to point at any particular belief or story and say, "Here, the kami say we should be like this".

Did they appear in Europe before Christianity?
Yes, they did.

Despite the violence of pagan Roman society, for instance, murder was still a crime under Roman law. So were theft and even adultery. Murder and theft were also crimes under the laws of the pagan Nordic, Germanic and British tribal societies. The Nordic pagans also created the first recorded instances of direct democracy and (relatively) egalitarian social organization. We know this because the Romans recorded it. I am sure they must have recorded similar information about the Western/Mediterranean European tribes, too, but I'm a little rusty on my Roman reading. All of this was recorded by the Romans long before the creation of Christianity, and centuries before Rome adopted Christianity as the state religion.

Furthermore, the Greeks generated most of the philosophies that formed the foundation of Western thought, including concepts about justice, equality, compassion, and ethics. They did that while they were pagans.

I meant the EU. Where capital punishment is banned universally and there hasn't been a war since 1945.

Institutionalised killing doesn't happen within our borders and war even outside is incredibly rare. With th epossible exception of Britain, European armies are now more peacekeeping style forces than imperialists.
Nowadays, they are -- and I thank them for it. However, 1945 was not that long ago. In historical terms, it's hardly a period on which to base conclusions about the superiority of a culture, let alone the source of any such superiority.

To a point, but nowhere is this actually codified, as well as you would get very conflicting points of view from various shrines around Japan. Shinto was, and still is, worship of the natural world along with mythological stories about Japan's beginings. It's also a way to get good harvests, which is the main purpose of Shinto, even today.

From there, yes, you can say that Shinto teaching living in harmony with nature and the kami around you (A common theme in Japanese lit and movies is the fight between Old Japan's harmony and Modern Japan's technology), but it's hard to point at any particular belief or story and say, "Here, the kami say we should be like this".
Yes, that's true. Shinto and most animist religions are primarily concerned with practical matters -- if you can have such a thing as practical spiritual matters. They are concerned with maintaining good relations with the spirits in charge of things like weather, health, money, food, test scores, traffic safety, houses, etc, etc. They are concerned with this life, not the next. Further, Shinto (like most animist religions, but even more so with Shinto) does not generally acknowledge that there is anything amiss with the human spiritual condition that humans must fix or atone for. You can get your soul out of whack if you don't do the right things, but we are not born that way. So there is no need in Shinto for an all-controlling god of humans (so to speak) who is in charge of rewarding or punishing us for what we do or don't do.

That said, though, I would suggest that in order to take care of those practical concerns -- in order to get into the good school and stay out of traffic accidents and get spiritual help in curing our cancers -- we must live by an ethical code.

There are two very good books on this subject: Folk Religion in Japan, by Ichiro Hori, and Practically Religious - Worldly Benefits and The Common Religion of Japan, by Ian Reader and George J. Tanabe, Jr.

Both of these talk about the ethical elements of the harmony sought by Shinto animism. The message is, basically, that you get nothing for nothing. If you want the kami to give you something, you have to be prepared to give them something in return, even if it is just respectful acknowledgement. If you want the kami to help you accomplish a goal, you have to do your part. You can't just burn incense in front of a statue and ask the kami to help you lose weight and expect it to happen. You have to exercise and change your diet, too. And if you don't, if all you do is pester the kami as if it's their job to do things for you, then you may expect to have more trouble than you would if you never prayed to the kami for anything at all.

There is also the ethical idea inherent in the veneration of nature that we do not own the planet and do not have the right to do anything we like with it. It is the ethics of respecting others, of having concern for the needs of others, of recognizing and paying our debts, and of taking personal responsibility for our actions.

Even though Shinto does not codify these ideas into a holy book or something, that does not mean these ideas are not vital parts of the religion's world view. They are taught to and by the priests and priestesses, and they are part of the ethical culture of Japanese society (though the Japanese people may or may not follow them much), illustrated and backed up by the religious rituals of Shinto.

EDIT: BTW, I just remembered, there are stories, I think, in the Nihonji, of the goddess Amaterasu traveling the world teaching humans how to behave, just like Odin, Zeus and other society-creating deities are supposed to have done. She not only taught humans how to bathe and prepare their food, so they would no longer be like animals, she also taught humans moral behaviors and laws and how to make silk cloth.

*Sniped for agreement*
That said, though, I would suggest that in order to take care of those practical concerns -- in order to get into the good school and stay out of traffic accidents and get spiritual help in curing our cancers -- we must live by an ethical code.
That may be streaching things to a breaking point though. It's not so much of a code as it is a culture. I'll explain below.

There is also the ethical idea inherent in the veneration of nature that we do not own the planet and do not have the right to do anything we like with it. It is the ethics of respecting others, of having concern for the needs of others, of recognizing and paying our debts, and of taking personal responsibility for our actions.

Even though Shinto does not codify these ideas into a holy book or something, that does not mean these ideas are not vital parts of the religion's world view. They are taught to and by the priests and priestesses, and they are part of the ethical culture of Japanese society (though the Japanese people may or may not follow them much), illustrated and backed up by the religious rituals of Shinto.
This is where (the Japanese being Japanese) things might start getting a little confusing. As I said, it's hard to think of this as a moral code as thought of in the Western sense (The Ten Commandments being a prime example, laws handed down as to how one should behave) and more of a cultural sense. In other words, one does something because one is Japanese. To be Japanese is to be from the land of the kami. So certain things are done not due to a code or laws, but because one is Japanese.

For example (as you noted below) bathing a part of being Shinto. Shinto is very conserned with personal purity and one has to wash your hands and mouth before stepping into the shine grounds (which, let me tell you, is NOT fun in the winter). Part of these beliefs have become cultural though, the Japanese tradition of bathing, onsen visits, and the removal of shoes are all part and parcel of Shinto beliefs, but are so cultrually ingrained that one does so because one is Japanese, irregardless of if one happens to be a practicing Christian as well.

In Japan, many such cultural traiditions are tied into Shinto at the root, but, as I noted, it's hard to say that they are given as a moral code, but more explained as "Because you are Japanese". It's become a common answer to many of my questions, "Why do Japanese train drivers appologiese if they are one minute late?" "Because we are Japanese, we must be considerate of others." "Why is it that the store clerk says sorry for troubling me when handing me my change?" "Because we are Japanese." "Why are we caring a portable shrine up the side of a mountain while stripped to the waist and drunk?" "Because we are Japanese and this is Japanese custom". And so on.

At the base you can find Shinto beliefs and rituals, but it is so cultural now... I really get a kneejerk reaction when it is called a moral code because the Japanese themselves do not view it as such, or even as being particuarlly religious. It's just what you DO when you're Japanese.

As a personal story, my wife (who is Japanese) was once asked by my mother about her personal beliefs. My wife later explained that she was very confused by the question because many of my mother's questions about ethical codes in the Western sense didn't apply in Japan because it was a part of her culture and just what you did should you be Japanese.

EDIT: BTW, I just remembered, there are stories, I think, in the Nihonji, of the goddess Amaterasu traveling the world teaching humans how to behave, just like Odin, Zeus and other society-creating deities are supposed to have done. She not only taught humans how to bathe and prepare their food, so they would no longer be like animals, she also taught humans moral behaviors and laws and how to make silk cloth.
I shall have to check myself. I remember the story about making things, but the moral laws... *sighs* Here we go again, once more into reading Japanese myths. I thought I was done for a bit. ;)

That may be streaching things to a breaking point though. It's not so much of a code as it is a culture. I'll explain below.

I think there is a distinction in English between two usages of the word "code." There is the idea of a "code" that is a written or explicit set of rules handed down from an exterior authority. There is also the idea of a "code" that is a set of rules held personally by an individual and which may be either developed independently by that individual or developed in response to an observed or learned principle. As a religion, Shinto teaches that respectful and harmonious relationships are important and that if you don't maintain them, you will suffer for it. I think experience shows us that the best, if not only, way to achieve respectful and harmonious relationships is through ethical conduct. Thus, even though the religion does not teach a specific code of ethics, it nevertheless promotes ethical conduct by encouraging people towards a goal that is best reached via ethics. That may leave each person with the task of developing their own ethics -- and as I said, they may or may not succeed or even bother about it much, but that's just as true of any other culture, isn't it? -- but since they have a clear objective in mind (the relationships), they are not entirely without guidance, are they? Despite your personal experience with Japanese culture, you haven't told me anything that would suggest to me that Japanese who follow Shinto do not have what non-Japanese would recognize as ethics.

This is where (the Japanese being Japanese) things might start getting a little confusing. As I said, it's hard to think of this as a moral code as thought of in the Western sense (The Ten Commandments being a prime example, laws handed down as to how one should behave) and more of a cultural sense. In other words, one does something because one is Japanese. To be Japanese is to be from the land of the kami. So certain things are done not due to a code or laws, but because one is Japanese.
Well, that doesn't seem all that odd to me. I do things because I am a human being, or because I am the product of the culture in which I was raised, not because of a set of rules written in the book of a particular religion.

For example (as you noted below) bathing a part of being Shinto. Shinto is very conserned with personal purity and one has to wash your hands and mouth before stepping into the shine grounds (which, let me tell you, is NOT fun in the winter). Part of these beliefs have become cultural though, the Japanese tradition of bathing, onsen visits, and the removal of shoes are all part and parcel of Shinto beliefs, but are so cultrually ingrained that one does so because one is Japanese, irregardless of if one happens to be a practicing Christian as well.
Actually, I did not mean to say that bathing is part of Shinto. Bathing is part of being human. In the society creation myths of Japan (which are part of the world creation myth cycle and similar to such stories in all myth cycles), there is only one group humans and that is the group to which the stories refer -- Japanese, Navaho, Greek, etc. The degree to which that concept of ourselves = human beings persists in Japanese society may be interesting, but I don't think it invalidates the idea that the teaching is ethical. Yes, Shinto ritual is concerned with physical purity, but the bathing in the stories was a human-making practice, not a religious ritual. It is the same as all other myths in the world in which a god teaches humans to be clean.

<snip>
Your experience is obviously with Japan. My experience is with animism. Naturally, not being Japanese, but being a (non-Shinto) animist, I have more interest in the fundamental principles of Shinto than even in how the Japanese experience their own religion. I do not deal with the Japanese kami, nor do I care much about the degree to which the Japanese choose to ingrain their morals into their cultural identity -- whether it is to differentiate themselves from non-Japanese or for any other reason. (I have to say, I don't see much difference between the Japanese saying they are respectful of others because they are Japanese and some Christians saying they are good people because they are Christians. Both statements imply some things and beg the question on other things. It doesn't matter to me; as long as they're polite, I don't care why.)

In any event, I think we should be careful when we say that the Japanese do this or that because of their culture not because of their religion. If you are a Christian or come from a culture that was converted to a new religion at some point in its history, as all Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists were, for instance, the you come from a very different cultural concept of religion than a person whose religion and culture have never been separate. Animism is indigenous to Japan. Christianity is not indigenous to the US or Europe. For you, your religion came to you from outside. For the Japanese, Shinto has always been there and there has never been a Japan without it. Those who follow the ethical codes of Christianity can be forgiven for saying that an ethical code is an external law that is followed by choice, rather than a cultural identity which is felt as part of oneself. I can imagine why, for the Japanese, on the other hand, the concepts of their cultural identity, their religion, and their ethics are so inseparable that they cannot even talk about them individually.

For myself, my understanding of Shinto comes from Shinto priests and scholars writing for a non-Shinto, non-Japanese audience. They talk more about the roots you mentioned and try to make the religion more understandable to the world outside Japanese cultural identity. It's interesting that, when you read papers by the scholars of the Shinto Federation and other organizations, you get the impression that Shinto should be a religion accessible to everyone, but then you realize how much of it is concerned with ancestral spirits, and you realize that a non-Japanese has little in common with such beings. Even a non-Japanese animist living in Japan would never experience Shinto fully because our ancestral spirits are not Japanese and would not be interested in the Japanese rituals necessarily. But nevertheless, you can learn a lot about animism by studying Shinto in comparison with other animist beliefs because Shinto articulates its ideas very clearly. Such comparative study is necessary because animist religions never codify anything. There are no codes or texts to follow.