State Religion

[lunamoth]

MO State Religion

I don't think this bill will pass, but it is an interesting (and I think frightening) development. Is this a step toward a Christian theocracy? I love my religion, but this makes me cringe. Politics and religion are not good bedfellows.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Sorry, I just noticed that the link does not work unless one registers. It's a short article and basically says that a bill is being presented to the MO state government to make Christianity the official state religion. Having just moved from MO I can attest that are a lot of non-Christians there who might have an objection to this. A lot of Christians, as well.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste lunamoth,

the link worked for me just fine...

here's the part that really troubles me:

"The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs. "

that is, it would seem, a direct Constitutional violation wherein the rights of the minority is protected from being infringed by the majority.

sheese...

metta,

~v

(the link isn't working now, it is behaving like you indicated)

[Leafblade]

It's disturbing that someone would purpose this bill. I hope that this bill burns quickly because it's unconstitutional. One thing I learned the past few years is that anything could happen, hopefully this won't be one of the things that happen to pass.

[truthseeker]

It won't pass - the Atheists United will see to that.

The repeated attempts to do these types of things - official state religion, banning abortion (South Dakota), prohibition of same-sex marriage as a constitutional amendment, violating the right of privacy (PATRIOT Act)... is what bothers me. Proposition after proposition, the same unconstitutional requests are being made but in a different lingo.

[Leafblade]

They're being made because all branches of government are run by the Republican party, with a president who admited to being an Evangelical. They believe that they're able to pass these laws because their votes are what got these people in. If their desires aren't met their votes will changed. The Patriot Act is a deep concern since this power can be used improperly. How can we be certain that the president or anyone else would use this power responsibly. I think the bait is too tempting and that someone will bite and cause all sorts of trouble in the US.

Back on the topic, pushing for official State religions sounds like it'll alienate all other religions (since a majority of the country is Christian). Somehow I think it could be a political weapon similar to how Bush threw his religion around to get votes. It's an effective weapon in the hands of someone who can use it. No offense to anyone but people can be stupid when you get them in the right frame of mind.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Possibly a little off topic, but can someone tell me where MO is? I don't know many of the the state abreviations.

[lunamoth]

MO is Missouri, central USA. It is the light-brown, Missouri-shaped state in the middle of this picture.


lunamoth

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

cheers luna

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Of course, the thought struck me...It is OK to advocate a "One-World" religion, but it is not OK to advocate a "state" religion...

Am I the only one who sees the problem with this? It is OK to advocate "my" religion as being the only one the world should follow, but I'll fight tooth and nail against "your" religion as being the only one for the world to follow...speaking abstractly, of course.

Which is why I have said all along, leave well enough alone. In the words of Rick Davies and Roger Hodgeson of Supertramp in the song "Child of Vision": "...find your way to heaven, and I'll meet you when you get there..."

[taijasi]

But Juantoo, the One World Religion that I've seen most people advocate (certainly with exceptions) ... isn't my religion vs. yours. Agreed, that will never - and should never - fly. Such thinking, needs its wings clipped.

If One World Religion were inclusive vs. exclusive, then it might be okay. Same with State Religion, which I think will come to pass, and on the way to One World Religion, there might be localized versions of this same general religion, just as there are currently sects of pretty darn well every recognized major (and minor) religion. I don't like the word, sects, though, at least - not spelled that way.

But, but, but - I resist! Yes indeed, I can feel that. Many do, and I along with them. The world has not yet seen on a wide enough scale, imho, any form of religion practiced which is worthy of become the One World Religion. Why? Because there are still disagreements with other religions! And so long as this continues, it will not be time (circular reasoning, kind of). Mob rules is not the proper grounds to sanction the unification of church & state. And right now, folks often cannot get past the divisive state. No matter how much some people would like us all to dance around happy & gay wearing party hats and saying, "We agree about everything!" .... it's just not going to happen. That stage, is obviously quite a ways off.

What dismays me, however, is that there are folks who object to Unity of belief and practice on general principle! Somewhere, the worst form of reverse psychology imaginable must have backfired, or become so familiar that it is accepted at face value! And thus, anything that smacks of Ecumenism, or the coming together of the faiths, is evil. I pity such people. The opposite trend is to gloss over any purely surface differences as just a matter of aesthetics, or semantics. The core truths are the same, after all, so who cares if some people pray facing east, and others chant hare krishna, right? I know, let's just write one universal prayer and take a line from every religious tradition's prayers ... and build the Esperanto of religions! Yuk.

Politics, esp. in the US, is pretty much one big power trip, isn't it? And there are those who will do anything at this point to seize more power. One more way to maintain control in this lovely bi-partisan system of ours.

andrew

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Taijasi!

If One World Religion were inclusive vs. exclusive, then it might be okay.

But this misses the point (if I see this correctly), in order to be "inclusive" it must of necessity dilute those it includes. If my faith walk works just fine without dilution or inclusion, why bother? Same goes for other faith walks. Hate to say it, but it seems to me the motivation behind "inclusion" is political power.

Now, I could extend further and provide reasons specific to my faith as to why not to do this, but in the interest of keeping this subject wide open, I will refrain for now and resort to my old friend greek logic.

Now, I have no qualms with those who espouse Universalism, or what I feel is a bit more sedate form of the same thing, B'hai. Certainly there are good things to be learned from both of these as philosophies. But to imply that either of these, or some new amalgam, is preferable as the "New Age" medicine for the whole world, is to greatly underestimate the value of each of the other major world faiths in their proper context. Not accusing, merely stating my view.

Same with State Religion, which I think will come to pass,

Ummm, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is the social norm throughout most of recorded history. Separation of Church and State is a very recent accomplishment, and it is still not a global reality. There are many nations who still accord a mandated religious position, even if that religion is "no religion." There may or may not be some lattitude within for alternate (and more important, legal) religious expression in any of these, but in many cases there is not. Right or wrong is irrelevant, it is how things are at this moment.

there might be localized versions of this same general religion, just as there are currently sects of pretty darn well every recognized major (and minor) religion.

I could, if I were of a mind, list how each and every major world faith became a major world faith, and how each left in its wake a series of "sects" or "denominations" as it spread throughout its region. Many of these "sects" are amalgams of the conquerer with the conquered, whether the conquest was peaceful or by force.

The advocates of a One World religion wish to amalgamate all religions, requiring dilution, and most likely still sectarian differentiation. Old habits die hard. This can actually be a good thing.

The world has not yet seen on a wide enough scale, imho, any form of religion practiced which is worthy of become the One World Religion. Why?

Could it be that the fault is not in religion, per se, but in humans simply being human? Why would a unified religion fix human nature? I dare to contend that a unified religion could not fix human nature, and so (like any religion blindly followed) would be but another instrument to use people.

Mob rules is not the proper grounds to sanction the unification of church & state. And right now, folks often cannot get past the divisive state..."We agree about everything!" .... it's just not going to happen.

Nor, in my opinion, should it. Unification on a global level has the ulterior motive of political control. In that much Marx and by extension Lenin are correct. Whereas Marx looked to "free" the people from the bonds of religion (the opiate of the masses), he overlooked the intrinsic need for religion in the everyday person's life. Unified religion acknowledges that need, and then seeks to exploit it. I have little doubt it will be attempted, I question how successful it will be, and the sincerity behind the motivation to do so.

What dismays me, however, is that there are folks who object to Unity of belief and practice on general principle! Somewhere, the worst form of reverse psychology imaginable must have backfired, or become so familiar that it is accepted at face value! And thus, anything that smacks of Ecumenism, or the coming together of the faiths, is evil. I pity such people.

Yet, you see me in practice here (and I assure, in my "regular" life as well) being accomodating of other faiths while retaining my own. There are points I disagree with, and I am certain the same is true in reverse. And yet, I can treat others as brothers and sisters without surrendering my own sense of faith and self. I have little problem with ecumenism as a principle, I have a great deal of problem with ecumenism as a political mandate.

The core truths are the same, after all, so who cares if some people pray facing east, and others chant hare krishna, right?

So why fix it if it ain't broke?

Politics, esp. in the US, is pretty much one big power trip, isn't it? And there are those who will do anything at this point to seize more power.

But at the global level it is not???

[taijasi]

Juantoo, on the last point, I will cite the example of the United Nations. With as much zeal, zest, enthusiasm, and patriotic pride as many folks display the Stars & Bars, I wave the banner of the United Nations! As far as political Unity ... this is the best thing we've got going so far. Is it perfect? No. But neither is American "Democracy." Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No. That is dualistic thinking. Just because, as G.K. Chesterton has put it, Christianity has been found difficult - and not been tried, does not mean you should abandon the effort. And the same with American Democracy. And the same with a Federation of Nations. Amen!

Re both state and world religion:

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

in order to be "inclusive" it must of necessity dilute those it includes.

I disagree. What you describe is only indicative of the present state of things. Those of us who believe in the desirability of a world/state religion, as well as the desirability of the unification of church & state, are well aware of the difficulty we face in attaining the goal. We know how much resistance we face, and why. And though accused again & again of being insensitive, and bent on wiping away all forms of religion except "our own," we know - that this is not true, for it is not, in fact, what we desire ... nor how we work. And although I cannot claim to represent in all ways the greater forces to which I refer and with which I would seek to cooperate, I do stand by that Cause with all the loyalty, and bearing the utmost of Respect, just as the average Christian stands by his recognition of the great exemplar of Unity & Cooperation (the Christ), and the institution of the Church.

The sticking point, which people come to again & again, is the feeling that something which is sacred to them - be it some particular form of worship, some particular form of tradition, or one of the many personal beliefs which occupies the form of their faith - is going to be taken. But did not Christ say before, I come not to destroy, but to fulfil (?). And such, exactly, is the effort of those who work toward religious Unity, vs. the spirit of plurality. A plurality of approaches is yet still desirable, and necessary. No one (rightly motivated) seeks to remove it. But agreement as to the world need(s) at this time, and the role(s) religion can serve in working towards it - is what we seek. A body divided against itself, cannot stand.

And yet, thus far the political Leviathan (which we both acknowledge) - continues to stand in our way, taking rather than giving to the people, and increasing its rampant devastation of our culture and crushing our human spirit. This beast must be tamed, and religion/spirituality has everything to do with that, as well as the spirit of secular humanism, so absent in the minds & hearts of the majority of politicians today ... whether or not they go and bow in the churches & synagogues on the Sabbath. Why should church & state remain separate in the long run? Do we feel that Humanity can never overcome our pettiness, and because evil will always triumph over good in our human hearts??? Does it seem sometimes that we will never learn to get along, and be able to allow Spirit to guide our entire Nation, and indeed, our World Politic?

I'm afraid I cannot agree with those who have so little faith in the potentials of the human Spirit (which is not different than that of the Divine). I believe our innate human nature is Good, and that in time, perhaps sooner than we think, we Will prepare room for the Coming One - in our hearts, in our minds, and in all our daily affairs. Not just as individuals, but as groups, at every level. The Unification which we all inherently desire - yet which some (many?) of us fear, since it has been so long since we have seen it truly demonstrate - Will come to pass. But we must work for it. Not simply wait. It must be forged and won, not freely handed to us as the reward for fighting amonst ourselves, and for ignoring the teachings of the world's great saviors.

Yes, we are far from perfect, and certainly we are prone to mistakes and to error, but if we allowed this type of thinking to cripple our efforts, we would never get anything accomplished! It is not with such thinking that the many Humanitarian agencies move throughout the world today, but with the spirit of Loving Cooperation and one-pointedness. Committed to the ideals of service to others, there are many philanthropic and altrustic groups of today - whether religiously sponsored or comprised of the secular Humanists. Their goal is the same: to alleviate unnecessary suffering, wherever it may be found, and to teach and embody the new values - which are necessary if we are become a sustainable world society (the true global village). And the goverments, and religious bodies, that can keep up, will be a boon to the people. But the so-called "leaders" (whether political or religious) whose lives & careers are built on corruption, will be toppled, along with their legacies & constitutencies ... as it should be. Woe betide those who yet stand & work amidst any of these last lingering bastions of selfishness!

Perhaps, since there is considerable concern, it would be helpful to look at the ideals and values which any state or world religions would have to embody and teach, were such to become possible. Instead of looking at forms, which is our immediate gut reaction and an expression of resistance, could we instead contemplate Spirit? That of Unity and Cooperation? I know we can do that! It's how we got this far in the first place!

cheers,

andrew

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Taijasi!

Perhaps, since there is considerable concern, it would be helpful to look at the ideals and values which any state or world religions would have to embody and teach, were such to become possible. Instead of looking at forms, which is our immediate gut reaction and an expression of resistance, could we instead contemplate Spirit? That of Unity and Cooperation? I know we can do that! It's how we got this far in the first place!

Actually, I have looked a little at both the spirit and motivation behind unification, enough to know I disagree. I mean you no malice, I accept you have your point of view and direction to work for. I have mine, and it is not the same. Not better, not worse, just different. If I am swept away with the old guard, then so be it. I know where I will wake up the next day.

Peace.

[juantoo3]

it would be helpful to look at the ideals and values which any state or world religions would have to embody and teach, were such to become possible.

Of course, this returns me to my original comment. If Christianity were that "world religion," I suspect you would cringe, as would most others who were not Christian. Likewise, if Buddhism were that "world religion," I suspect you and many others would likewise cringe. Yet, it is an underlying premise of every major world faith to improve the lot of the world, just like the underlying premise of "world religion." So, in the end, we really are talking about "mine" vs. "yours." Whether or not you see it.