An asylum for banished sects

About Religion » Christian Books » An asylum for banished sects

Question:

>>Secular Humanism is most certainly a source of religious experience >for the practitioner of that faith. >No, but it is a good source of argument material. It’s not a >faith, it’s the opposite, it relies on reasoned arguments. By >definition, dictionary, IRS, Court decisions, it’s not a >religion. Apparently neither of you, Fred or Jeff, knows >anything about secular humanism beyond what the TV preachers have >told you.

I have a different take on that myself. Secular humanism does require that one have initial values which are based on one’s desires. Those values are usually love of life and compassion for one’s fellow man. After the initial values, reason takes over, instead of religious pronouncements. But reason without initial values cannot come to any conclusions about life. Maybe my view on this is why I’m more diffident about calling humanism a religion than you are.

Response:

A often popular subject here encompasses the Founding Fathers and the influence of religion on them. The Library of Congress had a very complete exhibition called "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" a couple of years ago, and it is still available on the Library’s web site. Encompassing over 200 objects including early American books, manuscripts, letters, prints, paintings, artifacts, and music from the Library’s collections and complemented by loans from other institutions, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic explores the role religion played in the founding of the American colonies, in the shaping of early American life and politics, and in forming the American Republic. See: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/overview.html – The sections on the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are particularly noteworthy. It’s little wonder that even two centuries later, the Europeans still view Americans with a jaundiced eye. — Murphy As with any other information that you receive from questionable sources, it is wise to believe everything that you have read here without questioning it or attempting to verify it in any way. Make sure to pass the story along to everyone you know, too.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >A often popular subject here encompasses the Founding Fathers and the influence >of religion on them. The Library of Congress had a very complete exhibition >called "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" a couple of years >ago, and it is still available on the Library’s web site. >Encompassing over 200 objects including early American books, manuscripts, >letters, prints, paintings, artifacts, and music from the Library’s collections >and complemented by loans from other institutions, Religion and the Founding of >the American Republic explores the role religion played in the founding of the >American colonies, in the shaping of early American life and politics, and in >forming the American Republic. >See: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/overview.html – The sections on the >seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are particularly noteworthy. It’s little >wonder that even two centuries later, the Europeans still view Americans with a >jaundiced eye.

Ironically, for many on the Left, the worship of politics has displaced traditional religious belief. As political belief becomes more extreme, so does the quasi religious fervor of its adherents. This fervor is not too surprisingly combined with an almost unreasoning hatred of traditional forms of religion. An excellent example is an active member of this group (initials JC) who bills himself as a "secular humanist". Jeff

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>A often popular subject here encompasses the Founding Fathers and the influence >>of religion on them. The Library of Congress had a very complete exhibition >>called "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" a couple of years >>ago, and it is still available on the Library’s web site. >>Encompassing over 200 objects including early American books, manuscripts, >>letters, prints, paintings, artifacts, and music from the Library’s collections >>and complemented by loans from other institutions, Religion and the Founding of >>the American Republic explores the role religion played in the founding of the >>American colonies, in the shaping of early American life and politics, and in >>forming the American Republic. >>See: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/overview.html – The sections on the >>seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are particularly noteworthy. It’s little >>wonder that even two centuries later, the Europeans still view Americans with a >>jaundiced eye. >Ironically, for many on the Left, the worship of politics has >displaced traditional religious belief. As political belief becomes >more extreme, so does the quasi religious fervor of its adherents. >This fervor is not too surprisingly combined with an almost >unreasoning hatred of traditional forms of religion. An excellent >example is an active member of this group (initials JC) who bills >himself as a "secular humanist". >Jeff >Apparently you don’t know that there are both religious, e.g., >Christian, and non-religious, secular, humanists. I also, am a >secular humanist as the definition is so broad that almost >anyone, left, right, or in the middle, with a little empathy for >their fellow human beings and a high regard for critical >reasoning can be a humanist.

My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he feels toward traditional forms of religion. Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Rochester Minnesota USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Lest this degenerate into a discussion of how many angels can dance on >the head of a pin, I was just observing that as left wing political >thought becomes more extreme, it gets infused with an unreasoning >passion that exactly parallels a religious conviction. It makes no >difference what label the true believer puts on it — secular >humanism, scientific socialism, or whatever. The belief system exists >independent of labels. >What belief system are you referring to? Please describe >it — what is it specifically that left wingers believe that is >parallel to a religious conviction? Are you saying that >whatever people on the left believe they infuse "it" with >an unreasoning passion — which would lead to the >inference that people on the right do not passionately >believe what they believe, or that if they do passionately >believe it it is reasonable that they should do so. >Or are you just blowing smoke as usual.

Rita, For more information on this subject, I would refer you to The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Written in the 50’s, it still has a message for us today. For a more intimate study of the warped psychology of the Left, you may wish to save yourself some money and put in a few good hours in front of a mirror. Jeff

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >>>>left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >>>>humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >>>>feels toward traditional forms of religion. >>> It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a >>>religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that >>>promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which >>>plum pie is of course safely out of sight. >>> I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and >>>atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. >>>But what’s in a word? >>There are two major reasons for not calling secular humanism a >>religion, 1, political restrictions that are supposed to preserve >>separation of religion and state, and 2, to have a religion >>requires, by definition, a belief in a supernatural power (god). > I can’t go along with (1) at all, since it seems merely >utilitarian and arbitrary to me. As to (2), I think things like >Shinto and the atheistic brands of Buddhism are still called >"religions" by convention, even though they don’t have gods >but merely advocate a "right way of living", just as humanism >does. I’m sure they use reason to expand on their initial >values, just as humanism does, but as much could be said >even for Catholicism once one gets beyond the dogma. >If you can’t go along with not calling secular humanism a >religion, don’t call yourself a secular humanist. Find something >else, but organized secular humanists have agreed that it isn’t a >religion. Start your own religion, you’ll save a lot in taxes. >>Before providing anymore comfort to those that want religious >>restrictions placed on secular humanists, please scan some of the >>online material. I recommend starting with the magazine "Free >>Inquiry." > I certainly hate to provide comfort to supernatural religions, >since in my opinion the capacity for supernatural religion is >one of the ugliest and most dangerous things about the human >race. (I’d guess it’s an outgrowth of the "pack" and "leader" >complex that’s so useful to animals like wolves and our >ancestral humans.) I don’t know anything to speak of about >formal humanism, but I’m sure it must be based on arbitrary >values, since there is no other possible place to start. > There is no "rational" reason to want to live at all. Love of >life is desire, not reason. There are other possible paradigms. >I’m sure Atilla the Hun didn’t consider himself insane, and he >wasn’t. He just had different initial values, in which the >circle of compassion faded more quickly with distance from >himself than it does for most modern Euro-Americans. Nazis >elevate the glory of the state above the individual. What >about "honor"? Some people feel honor is worth more than >life. Others may value honor highly, but not count it supreme >above the welfare of their families. Such judgments are not >"godly" judgments, but they are not based entirely on reason. >Your base of knowledge in this area seem drawn more from the >either than from any experience with secular humanists. Please >go read the literature before commenting further or at least >insert a disclaimer before you try to argue that which has been >settled.

{Disclaimer: I have never read up on humanism, secular or otherwise.} The above paragraph doesn’t answer my suggestion that any paradigm for life must be based on something other than reason because reason is only process. I don’t see why I would have to read up on secular humanism to make that statement. It seems evident to me that pure reason without initial values is incapable of saying anything about "right" living. I’m sorry to have gotten your goat, as I’m very much in sympathy with your views. There’s just that one little point I wanted to make. To me it seems important, because I feel there are in fact assumptions here, and one should be aware of one’s assumptions.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >>>>left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >>>>humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >>>>feels toward traditional forms of religion. >>> It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a >>>religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that >>>promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which >>>plum pie is of course safely out of sight. >>> I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and >>>atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. >>>But what’s in a word? >>There are two major reasons for not calling secular humanism a >>religion, 1, political restrictions that are supposed to preserve >>separation of religion and state, and 2, to have a religion >>requires, by definition, a belief in a supernatural power (god). > I can’t go along with (1) at all, since it seems merely >utilitarian and arbitrary to me. As to (2), I think things like >Shinto and the atheistic brands of Buddhism are still called >"religions" by convention, even though they don’t have gods >but merely advocate a "right way of living", just as humanism >does. I’m sure they use reason to expand on their initial >values, just as humanism does, but as much could be said >even for Catholicism once one gets beyond the dogma. >If you can’t go along with not calling secular humanism a >religion, don’t call yourself a secular humanist. Find something >else, but organized secular humanists have agreed that it isn’t a >religion. Start your own religion, you’ll save a lot in taxes.

Glenn, Lest this degenerate into a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I was just observing that as left wing political thought becomes more extreme, it gets infused with an unreasoning passion that exactly parallels a religious conviction. It makes no difference what label the true believer puts on it — secular humanism, scientific socialism, or whatever. The belief system exists independent of labels. >>Before providing anymore comfort to those that want religious >>restrictions placed on secular humanists,

Just who might "those" be, and what "religious restrictions" did you have in mind? Teaching it in schools? Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> please scan some of the >>online material. I recommend starting with the magazine "Free >>Inquiry." > I certainly hate to provide comfort to supernatural religions, >since in my opinion the capacity for supernatural religion is >one of the ugliest and most dangerous things about the human >race. (I’d guess it’s an outgrowth of the "pack" and "leader" >complex that’s so useful to animals like wolves and our >ancestral humans.) I don’t know anything to speak of about >formal humanism, but I’m sure it must be based on arbitrary >values, since there is no other possible place to start. > There is no "rational" reason to want to live at all. Love of >life is desire, not reason. There are other possible paradigms. >I’m sure Atilla the Hun didn’t consider himself insane, and he >wasn’t. He just had different initial values, in which the >circle of compassion faded more quickly with distance from >himself than it does for most modern Euro-Americans. Nazis >elevate the glory of the state above the individual. What >about "honor"? Some people feel honor is worth more than >life. Others may value honor highly, but not count it supreme >above the welfare of their families. Such judgments are not >"godly" judgments, but they are not based entirely on reason. >Your base of knowledge in this area seem drawn more from the >either than from any experience with secular humanists. Please >go read the literature before commenting further or at least >insert a disclaimer before you try to argue that which has been >settled. >Rochester Minnesota USA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the > >left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular > >humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he > >feels toward traditional forms of religion. > It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a > religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that > promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which > plum pie is of course safely out of sight. > I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and > atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. > But what’s in a word? >brian

Indeed. That was kind of tongue-in-cheek, referencing earlier discussions between myself and El Castor.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >>left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >>humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >>feels toward traditional forms of religion. > It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a >religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that >promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which >plum pie is of course safely out of sight. > I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and >atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. >But what’s in a word? >There are two major reasons for not calling secular humanism a >religion, 1, political restrictions that are supposed to preserve >separation of religion and state, and 2, to have a religion >requires, by definition, a belief in a supernatural power (god).

I can’t go along with (1) at all, since it seems merely utilitarian and arbitrary to me. As to (2), I think things like Shinto and the atheistic brands of Buddhism are still called "religions" by convention, even though they don’t have gods but merely advocate a "right way of living", just as humanism does. I’m sure they use reason to expand on their initial values, just as humanism does, but as much could be said even for Catholicism once one gets beyond the dogma. >Before providing anymore comfort to those that want religious >restrictions placed on secular humanists, please scan some of the >online material. I recommend starting with the magazine "Free >Inquiry."

I certainly hate to provide comfort to supernatural religions, since in my opinion the capacity for supernatural religion is one of the ugliest and most dangerous things about the human race. (I’d guess it’s an outgrowth of the "pack" and "leader" complex that’s so useful to animals like wolves and our ancestral humans.) I don’t know anything to speak of about formal humanism, but I’m sure it must be based on arbitrary values, since there is no other possible place to start. There is no "rational" reason to want to live at all. Love of life is desire, not reason. There are other possible paradigms. I’m sure Atilla the Hun didn’t consider himself insane, and he wasn’t. He just had different initial values, in which the circle of compassion faded more quickly with distance from himself than it does for most modern Euro-Americans. Nazis elevate the glory of the state above the individual. What about "honor"? Some people feel honor is worth more than life. Others may value honor highly, but not count it supreme above the welfare of their families. Such judgments are not "godly" judgments, but they are not based entirely on reason.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >> >left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >> >humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >> >feels toward traditional forms of religion. >> Dream on!! >> You don’t know what you’re talking about. >> Jim >> Ga. >"knowing" like beauty is in the "mind" of the "hearer". >Thus you don’t/can’t know what you are hearing about. >It appears you don’t understand what a human being "is" >nor the human condition. >Secular Humanism is most certainly a source of religious experience >for the practitioner of that faith. > No, but it is a good source of argument material. It’s not a > faith, it’s the opposite, it relies on reasoned arguments.

The "reasoned" arguments depend totally on faith. > By > definition, dictionary, IRS, Court decisions, it’s not a > religion. Apparently neither of you, Fred or Jeff, knows > anything about secular humanism beyond what the TV preachers have > told you.

Wrongo pink man! 1. I have no TV (for 8 years) 2. I am not a church goer 3. My religion is Science. Science is faith based. My attack was at Jim, not "secular humanism". BTW, the culture (your "definition, dictionary, IRS, Court decisions") is both as out of it as Jimbo but also faith based and also as wrong. None of these take into account human brain structure and function. > Rochester Minnesota USA

– f. martin mcneill Web : http://www.fuzzysys.com LIBERAL MYTHS 1: If it feels good, do it. 2: Free love 3: God is dead. 4: Working together, we can achieve Utopia. 5: What is, is wrong. 6: Mankind is basically good. 7: Mankind is basically evil. 8: Men and women are the same. 9: Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. 10: I get by with a little help from my friends. 11: Make love, not war. 12: Governments are ethical. 13: The future is predictable. 14: New humans are "blank slates". 15: Happiness is a right. 16: Civil rights are without Civil responsibilities. 17: Character and individual competence don’t count. 18: The US Constitution evolves with time by itself.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >>left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >>humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >>feels toward traditional forms of religion. > It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a >religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that >promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which >plum pie is of course safely out of sight. > I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and >atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. >But what’s in a word? > There are two major reasons for not calling secular humanism a > religion, 1, political restrictions that are supposed to preserve > separation of religion and state, and 2, to have a religion > requires, by definition, a belief in a supernatural power (god). > Before providing anymore comfort to those that want religious > restrictions placed on secular humanists, please scan some of the > online material. I recommend starting with the magazine "Free > Inquiry." > Rochester Minnesota USA

Ignorant pap! — f. martin mcneill Web : http://www.fuzzysys.com LIBERAL MYTHS 1: If it feels good, do it. 2: Free love 3: God is dead. 4: Working together, we can achieve Utopia. 5: What is, is wrong. 6: Mankind is basically good. 7: Mankind is basically evil. 8: Men and women are the same. 9: Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. 10: I get by with a little help from my friends. 11: Make love, not war. 12: Governments are ethical. 13: The future is predictable. 14: New humans are "blank slates". 15: Happiness is a right. 16: Civil rights are without Civil responsibilities. 17: Character and individual competence don’t count. 18: The US Constitution evolves with time by itself.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >feels toward traditional forms of religion. > It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a > religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that > promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which > plum pie is of course safely out of sight. > I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and > atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. > But what’s in a word?

brian

Response:

>My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >feels toward traditional forms of religion.

Dream on!! You don’t know what you’re talking about. Jim Ga.

Response:

> >My point is that secular humanism IS a religion. The more extreme the >left wing viewpoint becomes, the more devotion the acolyte of secular >humanism feels for his new age religion and the more hostility he >feels toward traditional forms of religion. > Dream on!! > You don’t know what you’re talking about. > Jim > Ga.

"knowing" like beauty is in the "mind" of the "hearer". Thus you don’t/can’t know what you are hearing about. It appears you don’t understand what a human being "is" nor the human condition. Secular Humanism is most certainly a source of religious experience for the practitioner of that faith. — f. martin mcneill Web : http://www.fuzzysys.com LIBERAL MYTHS 1: If it feels good, do it. 2: Free love 3: God is dead. 4: Working together, we can achieve Utopia. 5: What is, is wrong. 6: Mankind is basically good. 7: Mankind is basically evil. 8: Men and women are the same. 9: Live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. 10: I get by with a little help from my friends. 11: Make love, not war. 12: Governments are ethical. 13: The future is predictable. 14: New humans are "blank slates". 15: Happiness is a right. 16: Civil rights are without Civil responsibilities. 17: Character and individual competence don’t count. 18: The US Constitution evolves with time by itself.

Response:

It’s a religion in the same sense that atheistic Buddhism is a religion. It’s not a religion like the supernatural religions that promise a plum pie as a reward for following orders, which plum pie is of course safely out of sight. I’d be more inclined to call things like humanism and atheistic Buddhism ethical paradigms rather than religions. But what’s in a word?

Response:

Seems to me I recall you sometime earlier complaining about those who couldn’t distinguish between religious experience and religion.

About Religion