Go to Choose NOW
- Add a comment
- Go to Aatheism
Re: AardigeAfrikaner - I won't make the mistake of commenting on your posts
Sharing the luv? Of what? Yourself and your own view perhaps. Believe whatever you like. Only those who cannot counter an argument with reason resort to a series of insults. Not very childlike but certainly very childish.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 30, 2008 at 4:51 AM
| link to this | reply
AardigeAfrikaner - I won't make the mistake of commenting on your posts
again.
What an utterly clueless response . . . are you on medication? . . . was it wearing off when you wrote that comment? I was going to respond but there is no point, you are accrediting notions to me that I clearly did not say or imply. Too bad that secular university didn't teach you how to read and write English . . . I'd ask for my tuition back if I was you.
Consider dialogue between us ended at this point.
posted by
gomedome
on April 30, 2008 at 2:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: AardigeAfrikaner - I could have taken a different approach to your post
You seem to assume that "religion" has to be non-common sense to be called religion? All truly ancient culture will remain something we can only have informed speculative discussion ,based on artifacts and ancient books, about at best. There is no "live" ancient culture we can study today. All the "primitive (technologically inferior)" cultures (we have almost none of these left either) that are still to be found today are not true representatives of any ancient cultures either. Most academic work on ancient cultures up until fairly recent was done through the intellectual lenses of monotheistic scholars in archeology and anthropology that has been proven wholly inadequate by people such as Jacques Derrida.
I'm getting tired of people who class all religion under the same category as the perverted social control mechanisms evident in fundamentalist and Catholic doctrine. I say perverted, since aspects of religion such as myth and ritual are intrinsic to all cultures that we can say anything about with a large degree of certainty. Myth and ritual (even stories about your parents childhood and the socially acceptable methods of going about simple things like eating are myth and ritual) are basic ingredients in any form of socially coherent "being together" of human beings.
As long as you see religion and the use of the word God only in terms of an anthropomorphic caricature that exist only in foolish peoples imaginations you will never understand that even secular society is as religious as any other form of culture. As long as our understanding of the different contexts in which we can use the words "religion" and "God" differ, me and you cannot have a sensible and constructive discussion about anything relating to these words. I understand your use of these terms, but you obviously have no idea what I'm referring to when I use these words. I strongly suggest you do a 5 year degree at a secular university in comparative religion, such as I have done, before you try to pre-empt my thinking on the subject since it will become clear to you that your current thinking on the subject displays a marked degree of lack of depth.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM
| link to this | reply
AardigeAfrikaner - I could have taken a different approach to your post
The example I gave assumes that as a resident of a country that was formerly part of the British Empire (as I am) that you are aware of some of the secular historical influences pertaining to our laws. And also that you appreciate how some secular values are integral to all of our core values as fair and just societies.
I see the distinction you are trying to make however, when you suggest that the philosophies inherent in religious dogma are the fundamental premise for a great deal of our values and subsequently our laws. Of this there is no doubt but then you attempt to suggest that even the more basic laws of social co-existence such as: "though shalt not kill" would not exist if not derived from religion. When you do research for your article, you may want to saunter through the study of ancient cultures. It will become clear that what is contained in the 10 commandments for example, are simply common sense social co-existence guidelines that have evolved over mankind's history and have been encapsulated as the so called words of God.
posted by
gomedome
on April 28, 2008 at 4:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: AardigeAfrikaner - are we making a list, how long would you like it to
As for my statements regarding law as a result of (being dependent on) religious ideas, I will write an article that I hope will bring to light my view of reality (more so than the shenanigans I've been up to thus far on this site) and this should underline why I say the things I do. As you can probably appreciate it is near impossible to make any unorthodox set of ideas easily understandable to readers who are full of preconceived ideas and stuck on specific flavors of interpretation of words and frameworks. I have previously felt that this is too complex a task to accomplish in such a way that it will be readable and sensible to as wide an audience as possible and therefore not as useful as I would have hoped for. I have only recently decided to "test the water" and put some of my ideas into the public forum. (I also need to work on my English grammar - specifically the "tenses" thing). Thanks for reading and reacting here.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 28, 2008 at 1:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: AardigeAfrikaner - are we making a list, how long would you like it to
I will look into this if time and inclination permits. Unfortunately I preferred studying history of ideas to studying history of events. The history we were taught in school in South Africa under the White Dutch Reformed Supremist government was very narrow in scope in the field of ideas. It was aimed at promoting specific ideas and was mostly slanted in that direction. It was basically propaganda by which they sought compliance and intelligence in support of their agenda to remain the heroes of a lost cause. When power in the state changed hands the icons of the old promoted history was literally taken down (statues overturned, place names changed and history rewritten) to promote the new supremist ideology of a people who felt oppressed and in need of establishing themselves as worthy human beings in the arena of politics and ideas. In all fairness they were oppressed and considered unworthy under the apartheid government. But so were al people who were not White and Dutch Reformed Christians. The pendulum swung too far and a once proud people became despondent at the large scale destruction of their heritage. Now it is they that are oppressed although in a more subtle way (if you disregard the thousands of white large scale land owners (farmers) killed in supposed random acts of crime). Recent South African history is more an example of what should not be done than anything else. For a peek at the document portraying the will of the current government goto ->
Freedom Charter Unfortunately this is very much a Marxist view of getting rid of perceived problems without giving a practical solution scenario. The aims of freedom, housing, work, security and equality were nice to think about but their reign over the last decade has in many instances had the opposite effect. There is definitely more jobless, huge housing problems, less security and there are still racist overtones in labor law.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 28, 2008 at 1:34 PM
| link to this | reply
AardigeAfrikaner - are we making a list, how long would you like it to be?
How about some of your country's history?
In 1888, Charles Bradlaugh secured passage of a new Oaths Act, which enshrined into law the right of affirmation (instead of taking the religious oath of allegiance), for members of both Houses (British Parliament), as well as extending and clarifying the law as it related to witnesses in civil and criminal trials. This particular law, its acceptance and application is viewed as one of the cornerstones of modern civil law, providing the framework for the recognition of a great number of day to day legal procedings commonly undertaken today without religious influence.
It was only 120 years ago that a person still had to declare their allegiance to God and the church to own property, get married or hold any number of private and public positions.
posted by
gomedome
on April 28, 2008 at 2:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Aardige
I'm glad someone agrees. Thanks for reading.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on April 28, 2008 at 2:17 AM
| link to this | reply
Aardige
Come to think of it, it would be difficult to come up with a law for living a good and mindful life that could not ultimately be linked to a religion.
posted by
Troosha
on April 27, 2008 at 2:34 PM
| link to this | reply