Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to The enemies of organized religion?
gd,
to add much to your post would just be more icing on the cake!
posted by
Nautikos
on June 26, 2006 at 7:41 AM
| link to this | reply
It's the enemy because...
It's saying that we can think and act on our own accord without the need for "divine interference" to tell us what we should think, and what is right from wrong.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on June 25, 2006 at 11:11 PM
| link to this | reply
nothing at all wrong with those principles
all people, religious or not, should let those principles guide them.
that's what Paul said.
posted by
Xeno-x
on June 25, 2006 at 12:50 PM
| link to this | reply
strat - I try to stay away from such comparisons using human intelligence
but sometimes we have no choice.
For some people it is truly easier to die, or to react, or to close their minds than it is to think. It is also much easier to have other people do their thinking for them. We may all be guilty of having others do our thinking for us in varying degrees but I do know that I am at least very choosy about who I would let think for me. This very short list does not include the observations of primitive minds from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century, as is the basis for all religious doctrine of all of the world's major religions.
posted by
gomedome
on June 25, 2006 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply
I forgot who said,
"It's easier to die than to use your brain," but they were pretty well on the mark.
I suppose "having faith" takes the nasty business of having to think about something out of the equation of human behavior.
posted by
strat
on June 25, 2006 at 11:13 AM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - that's the crux of it all
Definitive labelling words being villified without justification to win a war of popularity within public opinion. I cannot for the life of me understand how secular humanism as described, can be anyone's "enemy"? This of course is just looking at the words and is without examining the practical application of these words, or the history of those who would advance this mindset. But there is nothing objectionable about these basic philosophies as written in this post. Those who would object to this type of compassionate and intelligent approach to viewing life for our species, say much more about themselves simply by their objections.
posted by
gomedome
on June 25, 2006 at 9:21 AM
| link to this | reply
You hit on something I've often said...
I happily thought of myself as a secular humanist until I learned that made me evil and corrupted. Even after learning I was the devil incarnate I felt there was nothing wrong with my way of thinking and still proudly consider myself a secular humanist. I also don't understand why liberal is a dirty word. When did having compassion for fellow human beings become a bad thing? I proudly wore the label liberal when everyone else was spitting on it. But, it now seems it's too late to save that label and it has been replaced by "progressive." Okay, now I'm a progressive. Geesh... the word games we play when in reality, we're all just people trying to make our way through life. Anyway, perhaps with your posting the definition for "secular humanist" we can still save that term from extinction.
posted by
TVBlogger
on June 25, 2006 at 9:02 AM
| link to this | reply