Why did you become so sceptical to religion?

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

This is what I know about the Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, they have lost their way, they are no longer walking the path that the Buddha has given his followers to follow in our quest to reach Nirvana ( Enlightenment )

Buddhas teachings about liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving.

Because not everyone has the same inclinations and interests, the Buddha taught a wide variety of methods to suit different people. With this in mind, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that it’s wonderful that so many different religions exist in the world. Just as one food will not appeal to everybody, it’s true that one religion or set of beliefs will not satisfy everyone’s needs. The fact that a variety of different religions is available is very beneficial, and something to be welcomed and rejoiced at.

The Path

1. * Samma-Ditthi — Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.

2. Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.

3. Samma-Vaca — Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.

4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.

5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.

6. Samma-Vayama — Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.

7. Samma-Sati — Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.

8. Samma-Samadhi — Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.

 

 

 

   

Exactly, my take is for me it means stay in my own lane, and leave others to theirs, and leave room for some magic. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly, my take is for me it means stay in my own lane, and leave others to theirs, and leave room for some magic. 

That is exactly what I have been told here in Korea by the Monk that has been teaching me, he made it very clear that what you said about is one of the most important tenants to follow and never forget!!!!!!!

Thanks for your post, now I am waiting for MR. Walkers take on my comments!! 

[+Sherapy]

Just now, Manwon Lender said:

That is exactly what I have been told here in Korea by the Monk that has been teaching me, he made it very clear that what you said about is one of the most important tenants to follow and never forget!!!!!!!

Thanks for your post, now I am waiting for MR. Walkers take on my comments!! 

Thank you for sharing. Insightful.

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

One learns to recognize this aspect in all paths. 
‘Take the good and leave the rest, the key is to recognize dogma, wherever it shows up.

Wow We agree on something.  

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

This is what I know about the Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, they have lost their way, they are no longer walking the path that the Buddha has given his followers to follow in our quest to reach Nirvana ( Enlightenment )

Buddhas teachings about liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving.

Because not everyone has the same inclinations and interests, the Buddha taught a wide variety of methods to suit different people. With this in mind, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said that it’s wonderful that so many different religions exist in the world. Just as one food will not appeal to everybody, it’s true that one religion or set of beliefs will not satisfy everyone’s needs. The fact that a variety of different religions is available is very beneficial, and something to be welcomed and rejoiced at.

The Path

1. * Samma-Ditthi — Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.

2. Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.

3. Samma-Vaca — Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.

4. Samma-Kammanta — Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.

5. Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.

6. Samma-Vayama — Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.

7. Samma-Sati — Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.

8. Samma-Samadhi — Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.

 

 

 

   

As i said i have a great respect for Buddhism.  I have both studied it and taught it as part of comparative religious courses.

I like it because  it resembles  secular humanism in many ways

It is not a cultural fit for me or for most westerners to live by fully,   but many aspects of it can be adopted to benefit a westerner 

There are lot of Christians and Muslims who have also lost their way, and strayed from the teachings of their founders

here is the long version of  Secular Humanist principles. Notice how many of them resemble Buddhist ones .

quote

The Principles of Secular Humanism

Here’s the list from secularhumanism.org.

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-principles-of-secular-humanism/#:~:text=We believe in the common,are tested by their consequences.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Wow We agree on something.  

What do you like about it. I am interested in your thoughts. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

26 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What do you like about it. I am interested in your thoughts. 

One learns to recognize this aspect in all paths.  TRUE
‘Take the good and leave the rest,TRUE  the key is to recognize dogma, wherever it shows up. TRUE

All beliefs should be judged on the effects they have when the beliefs promote behaviours Ie a constructive belief will promote a constructive behaviour and positive outcomes 

From the list of humanist principles 

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Grim Reaper 6]

42 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As i said i have a great respect for Buddhism.  I have both studied it and taught it as part of comparative religious courses.

I like it because  it resembles  secular humanism in many ways

It is not a cultural fit for me or for most westerners to live by fully,   but many aspects of it can be adopted to benefit a westerner 

There are lot of Christians and Muslims who have also lost their way, and strayed from the teachings of their founders

here is the long version of  Secular Humanist principles. Notice how many of them resemble Buddhist ones .

quote

The Principles of Secular Humanism

Here’s the list from secularhumanism.org.

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-principles-of-secular-humanism/#:~:text=We believe in the common,are tested by their consequences.

I must be very honest with you, first I am glad that you have some knowledge of Buddhism, but I doubt what you have studied will match what I have been taught. Main reason is because the dharmas do not translate into English well, and I know this because I speak Korean and I have read English translations of Korean Buddhist Scripture and there are many differences, not to mention that there are also many different types of Buddhism. The reason Korean Buddhism is different in many ways than other Buddhist teaching is because of a blending of Buddhist traditions. 

Korean Buddhist monks traveled to China and India in order to study Buddhism in the late Three Kingdoms Period, especially in the 6th century. In 526, The monk Gyeomik from Baekje ( Korean City ) traveled via the southern sea route to India to learn Sandskrit and to study the Vinaya. While the monk Paya (562–613?) from Goguryeo ( Korean City ) is said to have studied under the Tiantai master Zhiyi. Other Korean monks of the period brought back numerous scriptures from abroad and conducted missionary activity throughout Korea.   

As far as, Secular Humanism is concerned, I have never considered it, frankly one discipline is enough because it can take a life, or many life times to fully grasp when walking the Middle Path, and attempting to  reach Nirvana. But, I am going start a thread very soon concerning how the Christian Extreme far right has had a direct effect on Politics in America. I started following this subject in 1981 after President Reagan has taken office. My goal is to discuss how the Extreme Right got a foot hold in the White House and what effects it has had on politics today, which believe it are not are very very extreme.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it very much!!

[Mr Walker]

16 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I must be very honest with you, first I am glad that you have some knowledge of Buddhism, but I doubt what you have studied will match what I have been taught. Main reason is because the dharmas do not translate into English well, and I know this because I speak Korean and I have read English translations of Korean Buddhist Scripture and there are many differences, not to mention that there are also many different types of Buddhism. The reason Korean Buddhism is different in many ways than other Buddhist teaching is because of a blending of Buddhist traditions. 

Korean Buddhist monks traveled to China and India in order to study Buddhism in the late Three Kingdoms Period, especially in the 6th century. In 526, The monk Gyeomik from Baekje ( Korean City ) traveled via the southern sea route to India to learn Sandskrit and to study the Vinaya. While the monk Paya (562–613?) from Goguryeo ( Korean City ) is said to have studied under the Tiantai master Zhiyi. Other Korean monks of the period brought back numerous scriptures from abroad and conducted missionary activity throughout Korea.   

As far as, Secular Humanism is concerned, I have never considered it, frankly one discipline is enough because it can take a life, or many life times to fully grasp when walking the Middle Path, and attempting to  reach Nirvana. But, I am going start a thread very soon concerning how the Christian Extreme far right has had a direct effect on Politics in America. I started following this subject in 1981 after President Reagan has taken office. My goal is to discuss how the Extreme Right got a foot hold in the White House and what effects it has had on politics today, which believe it are not are very very extreme.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it very much!!

You are probably correct. I  had to get my knowledge  from  books documentaries  etc as a young person because there were no Buddhists anywhere near me most of the time 

As with all religions there appear to be many paths within it, perhaps as many as there are believers.

  As a teacher i spent  many years teaching comparative  religious studies to young people, aged about 13 to16. 

  I was also interested in the historical  way it spread and evolved throughout Asia over the millennia One of the fascinating things was its fit with an eastern outlook on life  (more spiritual) which is quite different to the materialist outlook of western cultures.

  i was raised  strongly secular humanist as a child which made it interesting and a bit awkward when i first connected to the cosmic consciousness aged about 13 and gained a form of gnosis or enlightenment, and later when it manifested materially in my life and remained connected to me.  

While my values remain humanist, the y must now accommodate a living powerful "god"  or  "cosmic consciousness"  with its own purpose and will 

Is there any such thing a s an "extreme religious right"  in America ?  

ie such a position is the norm for large swathes of the country, and populace, which means it may  not be extreme on a value line, although it can seem so to others. 

 In some places, vegetarianism is still viewed as unnatural and extreme,  and not consuming alcohol or drugs certainly  is, yet for an increasing number these have become the norm.     

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Grim Reaper 6]

54 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You are probably correct. I  had to get my knowledge  from  books documentaries  etc as a young person because there were no Buddhists anywhere near me most of the time 

As with all religions there appear to be many paths within it, perhaps as many as there are believers.

  As a teacher i spent  many years teaching comparative  religious studies to young people, aged about 13 to16. 

  I was also interested in the historical  way it spread and evolved throughout Asia over the millennia One of the fascinating things was its fit with an eastern outlook on life  (more spiritual) which is quite different to the materialist outlook of western cultures.

  i was raised  strongly secular humanist as a child which made it interesting and a bit awkward when i first connected to the cosmic consciousness aged about 13 and gained a form of gnosis or enlightenment, and later when it manifested materially in my life and remained connected to me.  

While my values remain humanist, the y must now accommodate a living powerful "god"  or  "cosmic consciousness"  with its own purpose and will 

Is there any such thing a s an "extreme religious right"  in America ?  

ie such a position is the norm for large swathes of the country, and populace, which means it may  not be extreme on a value line, although it can seem so to others. 

 In some places, vegetarianism is still viewed as unnatural and extreme,  and not consuming alcohol or drugs certainly  is, yet for an increasing number these have become the norm.     

Yes there certainly is, it is a radical part of the Evangelical Christian Faith, they are known as Christian Zionists and they have a Apocalyptic philosophy, and today they are firmly rooted in the White House, not only as Christian Advisers, but also in key positions in the Trump Administration .

Check out the White House Christian Advisers John Haggee  and Robert Jeffress

Quote by John Haggee, 

Hagee has claimed that Adolf Hitler was born from a lineage of "accursed, genocidally murderous half-breed Jews".^[21] Citing material from Jewish tradition,^[22][3] he claimed that the persecution of Jews throughout history, implicitly including the Holocaust, was due to the Jewish people's disobedience of God.^{[23][24][25][3]}

In 2008, Hagee claimed that the anti-Christ will be "a homosexual" and "partially Jewish, as was Adolph [sic] Hitler"^[26] and he also claimed that a reference in Jeremiah 16:16 to "fishers" and "hunters" was symbolic of positive motivation (Herzl/Zionism) and negative motivation (Hitler/Nazism) respectively, both men were sent by God for the purpose of having Jews return to Israel, and he even suggested that the Holocaust was willed by God because most Jews "ignored" Herzl

In a sermon in the late 1990s, Mr. Hagee said the Bible made clear that Hitler and the Holocaust — when about six million Jews were killed — were part of God’s plan to return Jews to Israel. “How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen,” he said, referring to the Holocaust. “Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Robert Jeffress

As Christian Zionists—Hagee is the founder of the main US Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and Jeffress regularly preaches the ideology on Fox news—the two men’s remarks reflect their belief that the modern state of Israel is the result of biblical prophecy. This belief centers around the idea that 4,000 years ago God promised the land to the Jews, who will rule it until Jesus’ return to Jerusalem and the rapture. Not all will benefit from this end of times scenario: While Christians will be saved and “live forever with Christ in a new heaven and earth,” those adhering to other religions who do not convert to Christianity will be sent to hell.

Take care

Edited November 24, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[Mr Walker]

45 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes there certainly is, it is a radical part of the Evangelical Christian Faith, they are known as Christian Zionists and they have a Apocalyptic philosophy, and today they are firmly rooted in the White House, not only as Christian Advisers, but also in key positions in the Trump Administration .

Check out the White House Christian Advisers John Haggee  and Robert Jeffress

Quote by John Haggee, 

Hagee has claimed that Adolf Hitler was born from a lineage of "accursed, genocidally murderous half-breed Jews".^[21] Citing material from Jewish tradition,^[22][3] he claimed that the persecution of Jews throughout history, implicitly including the Holocaust, was due to the Jewish people's disobedience of God.^{[23][24][25][3]}

In 2008, Hagee claimed that the anti-Christ will be "a homosexual" and "partially Jewish, as was Adolph [sic] Hitler"^[26] and he also claimed that a reference in Jeremiah 16:16 to "fishers" and "hunters" was symbolic of positive motivation (Herzl/Zionism) and negative motivation (Hitler/Nazism) respectively, both men were sent by God for the purpose of having Jews return to Israel, and he even suggested that the Holocaust was willed by God because most Jews "ignored" Herzl

In a sermon in the late 1990s, Mr. Hagee said the Bible made clear that Hitler and the Holocaust — when about six million Jews were killed — were part of God’s plan to return Jews to Israel. “How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen,” he said, referring to the Holocaust. “Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Robert Jeffress

As Christian Zionists—Hagee is the founder of the main US Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and Jeffress regularly preaches the ideology on Fox news—the two men’s remarks reflect their belief that the modern state of Israel is the result of biblical prophecy. This belief centers around the idea that 4,000 years ago God promised the land to the Jews, who will rule it until Jesus’ return to Jerusalem and the rapture. Not all will benefit from this end of times scenario: While Christians will be saved and “live forever with Christ in a new heaven and earth,” those adhering to other religions who do not convert to Christianity will be sent to hell.

Take care

Well that is America for you    It is ironic that a  nation  based on the separation of state and religions is such a religious nation And of course ,given America's historical background there will be a considerable number of "nutters"  from many  different  backgrounds  There is a lot to admire about America, but I am glad I don't live there. 

Ps ina sense of course Israel IS a product of biblical prophecy, but there is nothing divine or miraculous about that 

it i the historical  home of the jewish people and was always going to become their home again if/when geopolitical realities allowed it to. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Grim Reaper 6]

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well that is America for you    It is ironic that a  nation  based on the separation of state and religions is such a religious nation And of course ,given America's historical background there will be a considerable number of "nutters"  from many  different  backgrounds  There is a lot to admire about America, but I am glad I don't live there. 

Ps ina sense of course Israel IS a product of biblical prophecy, but there is nothing divine or miraculous about that 

it i the historical  home of the jewish people and was always going to become their home again if/when geopolitical realities allowed it to. 

Actually their in nothing in our Constitution or it's Amendments that specifically separate Church and State. Below is the Government document that explains the separation of church and states, it's called the establishment Clause and any violations  of it must go through The Supreme Court.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

i would disagree about Israel though the Christian Bible does speak about the end days and what Israel plays in that prophecy in the book of revelations. But the Christain Zionists have perverted the book of Revelations to fit their twisted agenda.

Take Care

[Mr Walker]

28 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Actually their in nothing in our Constitution or it's Amendments that specifically separate Church and State. Below is the Government document that explains the separation of church and states, it's called the establishment Clause and any violations  of it must go through The Supreme Court.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

i would disagree about Israel though the Christian Bible does speak about the end days and what Israel plays in that prophecy in the book of revelations. But the Christain Zionists have perverted the book of Revelations to fit their twisted agenda.

Take Care

It states it in that there cannot be a state religion  This was the fear of the early American s who had fled this in Europe where, in many countries, only the  state reilgion was allowed and the laws of church overruled those of the state.  Theoretically the govt should not be allowed to intervene in religion at all ( Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; )   but various court rulings have tilted it more to banning any religion in govt   matters. (as in schools) 

In Australia  we have exactly the same words in our constitution but the courts have interpreted it to allow ALL or no religions to have equal treatment under govts  eg here a  state  school can have a chaplain or  school prayer, BUT it must be possible for all/any religion to do this and for atheist to opt out.  The govt funds both church and state  schools.

I meant that, biblically, Israel is the home land of the hebiru/hebrew /jewish people   It is also historically so. Thus its not surprising that biblical and geopolitical realities coincided in the formation of the state of Israel  

The theology and prophecy which some people attach to it is something else entirely  

The y both misread the story of revelations, and some how think the y need to help god bring about the end times, which the y are waiting for

I guess the y forget the "coming as a thief in the night "  and "no man  shall know  the day or the hour"  bit.    

I am not a believer, in a literal bible,   but i do think people who follow a religion should have a good understanding of it 

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

This comes up often. The First Amendment to the Constitution had the effect of reserving to the states the establishment of religion (meaning specifically maintaining a tax-supported religious services provider) or interfering with "the free exercise" of religion. And the states did just that, some had established churches and it wasn't easy being Jewish in some of the states, or a Catholic in others.  The feds had to step aisde and let each state do its own thing.

There was, however, a religious libertarian impulse in the early republic. Rhode Island had been religiously "hands-off" even before it was independent (founded in reaction to neighboring Massachusetts' vigorous establishment whose approach to free expression had included occasional capital punishment). Virginia, famously, rejected establishment (also coming within shouting distance of abolishing slavery, but that's another story). Massachusetts voluntarily disestablished Protestantism before the Civil War, but only decades after it had joined the Union.

After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended again. Section 1 of the the Fourteenth Amendment required states to adopt federal standards of personal liberty:

Quote

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

which may sound clear, but we're still litigating what it means.

One thing that is clear, however, is that the Fourteenth did not simply impose upon state and local governments the same restrictions as the Bill of Rights had imposed on the federal government. Which is probably OK, since those federal restrictions are often murky (all our money says In God we trust; there is a federally defined and widely recited "pledge of allegiance" which affirms that the United States is a government under God, the houses of Congress hire clergy to offer prayers at some sessions ... ).

People on both sides find the ill-definition of the situation frustrating. Plus, there are many more than two sides: the American goverments can't favor one religion over another, sort of. (States can ban alcohol sales for any reason whatsoever, and within living memory could ban birth control, abortion, homosexual acts ... only somebody very naive could fail to see a religious component to such regulations).

It's all very murky. It simply won't do to quote the First Amendment and proclain what it means today. Yes, the first federal Congress did know what they meant to forbid to the federal government, thereby reserving the subject matter to the states. For a while. Then the Civil War fundamentally changed the relationship between the states and the federal government. It's been five or six generations now, and we still haven't figured out the new relationship in full detail. Religious freedom is one of the places that pinches.

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

This comes up often. The First Amendment to the Constitution had the effect of reserving to the states the establishment of religion (meaning specifically maintaining a tax-supported religious services provider) or interfering with "the free exercise" of religion. And the states did just that, some had established churches and it wasn't easy being Jewish in some of the states, or a Catholic in others.  The feds had to step aisde and let each state do its own thing.

There was, however, a religious libertarian impulse in the early republic. Rhode Island had been religiously "hands-off" even before it was independent (founded in reaction to neighboring Massachusetts' vigorous establishment whose approach to free expression had included occasional capital punishment). Virginia, famously, rejected establishment (also coming within shouting distance of abolishing slavery, but that's another story). Massachusetts voluntarily disestablished Protestantism before the Civil War, but only decades after it had joined the Union.

After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended again. Section 1 of the the Fourteenth Amendment required states to adopt federal standards of personal liberty:

which may sound clear, but we're still litigating what it means.

One thing that is clear, however, is that the Fourteenth did not simply impose upon state and local governments the same restrictions as the Bill of Rights had imposed on the federal government. Which is probably OK, since those federal restrictions are often murky (all our money says In God we trust; there is a federally defined and widely recited "pledge of allegiance" which affirms that the United States is a government under God, the houses of Congress hire clergy to offer prayers at some sessions ... ).

People on both sides find the ill-definition of the situation frustrating. Plus, there are many more than two sides: the American goverments can't favor one religion over another, sort of. (States can ban alcohol sales for any reason whatsoever, and within living memory could ban birth control, abortion, homosexual acts ... only somebody very naive could fail to see a religious component to such regulations).

It's all very murky. It simply won't do to quote the First Amendment and proclain what it means today. Yes, the first federal Congress did know what they meant to forbid to the federal government, thereby reserving the subject matter to the states. For a while. Then the Civil War fundamentally changed the relationship between the states and the federal government. It's been five or six generations now, and we still haven't figured out the new relationship in full detail. Religious freedom is one of the places that pinches.

 

The only thing I have found on this subject is the Establishment Clause, which is part of the First Amendment. 

 

Below is the Definition of the Establishment Clause

http://oer2go.org/mods/en-boundless-static/www.boundless.com/definition/establishment-clause/index.html

Neutrality, Religion 

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/882/neutrality-religion

 

[Mr Walker]

38 minutes ago, eight bits said:

This comes up often. The First Amendment to the Constitution had the effect of reserving to the states the establishment of religion (meaning specifically maintaining a tax-supported religious services provider) or interfering with "the free exercise" of religion. And the states did just that, some had established churches and it wasn't easy being Jewish in some of the states, or a Catholic in others.  The feds had to step aisde and let each state do its own thing.

There was, however, a religious libertarian impulse in the early republic. Rhode Island had been religiously "hands-off" even before it was independent (founded in reaction to neighboring Massachusetts' vigorous establishment whose approach to free expression had included occasional capital punishment). Virginia, famously, rejected establishment (also coming within shouting distance of abolishing slavery, but that's another story). Massachusetts voluntarily disestablished Protestantism before the Civil War, but only decades after it had joined the Union.

After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended again. Section 1 of the the Fourteenth Amendment required states to adopt federal standards of personal liberty:

which may sound clear, but we're still litigating what it means.

One thing that is clear, however, is that the Fourteenth did not simply impose upon state and local governments the same restrictions as the Bill of Rights had imposed on the federal government. Which is probably OK, since those federal restrictions are often murky (all our money says In God we trust; there is a federally defined and widely recited "pledge of allegiance" which affirms that the United States is a government under God, the houses of Congress hire clergy to offer prayers at some sessions ... ).

People on both sides find the ill-definition of the situation frustrating. Plus, there are many more than two sides: the American goverments can't favor one religion over another, sort of. (States can ban alcohol sales for any reason whatsoever, and within living memory could ban birth control, abortion, homosexual acts ... only somebody very naive could fail to see a religious component to such regulations).

It's all very murky. It simply won't do to quote the First Amendment and proclain what it means today. Yes, the first federal Congress did know what they meant to forbid to the federal government, thereby reserving the subject matter to the states. For a while. Then the Civil War fundamentally changed the relationship between the states and the federal government. It's been five or six generations now, and we still haven't figured out the new relationship in full detail. Religious freedom is one of the places that pinches.

 

Good explanation 
it always interests me, being a student of both the politics and history of the US and Australia that,  while we (quite deliberately)  adopted the exact wording of the American constitution in this area we interpreted it very differently 

 

We put more emphasis on the second phrase 

ie the gov t cannot prevent schools or other taxpayer funded institutions  having prayers or religious services or religious chaplains   but it can insist on  equivalency, both between religions and with atheism Ie none can be compelled to attend a religious service in a state school but no one can be prevented from  holding one, either   In other words a state religion is prohibited but free religious expression is encouraged (including atheism) Indeed discrimination on the grounds of religion is an  offence  in both public and private  places and work (with the caveat that an employee might have to demonstrate a commitment to the ethos of an employer, as in all things. 

The most common area of concern in recent years has been a move by some schools to stop Christmas carols and Christmas celebrations i n schools to prevent offending atheists or upsetting other religions.  However that would (probably)  be unconstitutional if challenged and most state govts have said it shouldn't happen.

 like wise equal opportunity/anti discrimination  laws  protect the right of students and teachers to wear   clothing or icons/jewellery representing their faith and to conduct religious rituals 

Religion is a lot less contentious in Australia  but there is still a limited move  to ban religious expressions in schools 

Way back in my first teaching year, in 1974, one teacher wanted all bibles removed from the school library. The school council very cleverly said no, but rather, tha t books of all faiths should be purchased and put in the library  Creationism can not be taught in state schools as an equivalent to evolution  but any religion/religious beliefs  can be (and are formalised in comparative religious studies)  And the govt funds religious schools (of any faith)  which have specific religious curricula, as long as the y also teach the approved compulsory Australian curriculum 

basically a very similar state/federal issue on funding of religious schools.

https://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resource-centre/commonwealth-funding-religious-schools-constitutional/

 

America seems to be moving in the same direction for the same reasons 

june 30 2020

 The U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the separation of church and state in a major ruling on Tuesday by endorsing Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools, a decision paving the way for more public funding of faith-based institutions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion-idUSKBN2412FX

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

Just so we're all on the same page here:

The First Amendment

Quote

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.

As many people use the terms, "the establishment clause" is the orange + red parts, and "the free exercise clause" is the orange + blue parts.

And the interpretation of both clauses is constrained by the Tenth Amendment, which passed at the same time:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, while the United States can't do the things listed in the First Amendment (now part of the Constitution), the states can - and did in the case of establishment, disestablishment and (in effect) free exercise.

This changed with the Fourteenth Amendment (its relevant section 1 was quoted in an earlier post). It created a new category of "can't do's," which are things that no American government can do, at any level (except at Gitmo).

Meanwhile, @Mr Walker's observation about the establishment-free exercise pairing, viewed as a declaration of human rights rather than a constraint on government, holds as true here in the US as in Australia. These rights can only be balanced against each other. They are primed to conflict, and do in court cases here all the time. So, we try to find compromises that people can live with = compromises that few people are satisfied with.

It's tough to be a libtertarian

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Just so we're all on the same page here:

The First Amendment

As many people use the terms, "the establishment clause" is the orange + red parts, and "the free exercise clause" is the orange + blue parts.

And the interpretation of both clauses is constrained by the Tenth Amendment, which passed at the same time:

In other words, while the United States can't do the things listed in the First Amendment (now part of the Constitution), the states can - and did in the case of establishment, disestablishment and (in effect) free exercise.

This changed with the Fourteenth Amendment (its relevant section 1 was quoted in an earlier post). It created a new category of "can't do's," which are things that no American government can do, at any level (except at Gitmo).

Meanwhile, @Mr Walker's observation about the establishment-free exercise pairing, viewed as a declaration of human rights rather than a constraint on government, holds as true here in the US as in Australia. These rights can only be balanced against each other. They are primed to conflict, and do in court cases here all the time. So, we try to find compromises that people can live with = compromises that few people are satisfied with.

It's tough to be a libtertarian

This ongoing evolution of powers and process  via court decisions is common to both countries. 

Both have a federal system and in both cases it seems that greater power and  authority has moved towards that federal govt and away from  the states  In Australia this has occurred largely because of economics ie the federal govt has far greater income raising mechanisms (income and goods and services (value added) tax) and controls the purse strings Thus while something like education is nominally a state responsibly it is increasingly  funded by the federal govt This gives the federal govt increasing authority and control over the entire system 

I am based, naturally, but I believe our system is (so far) in better balance than that of the USA in some areas ( such as preserving people's religious rights within govt settings)  while less so in other areas such as freedom of the press, and of speech, which is being increasingly controlled by govt 

Our constitution is less defined and a bit less robust  than that of the USA but perhaps even harder to change (out of 44 referendums trying to alter the constitution, only 8 have passed ) 

It is generally agreed that this is due to a reluctance of the Australian people  to extend greater powers to the federal govt 

We have had 4 non binding plebiscites which cant change the constitution but can change statutory laws associated with it 

The first two, to introduce compulsory military service in the first ww,  failed 

The second two  (1977 to change the national song from  God save the queen to Advance Australia fair,  and in 2017 to legalise gay marriage,)  passed 

[+Sherapy]

19 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

One learns to recognize this aspect in all paths.  TRUE
‘Take the good and leave the rest,TRUE  the key is to recognize dogma, wherever it shows up. TRUE

All beliefs should be judged on the effects they have when the beliefs promote behaviours Ie a constructive belief will promote a constructive behaviour and positive outcomes 

From the list of humanist principles 

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

Thank you for your thoughts. 

[+Hammerclaw]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Meanwhile, @Mr Walker's observation about the establishment-free exercise pairing, viewed as a declaration of human rights rather than a constraint on government, holds as true here in the US as in Australia. These rights can only be balanced against each other. They are primed to conflict, and do in court cases here all the time. So, we try to find compromises that people can live with = compromises that few people are satisfied with.

It's tough to be a libtertarian

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”    John Lydgate

[larryp]

On 11/22/2020 at 11:08 PM, Manwon Lender said:

". . . to quote you form your comments above ( there is a correct way to worship YHWY (God) ) that comments like your above is exactly what made me abandon Christianity when I was teenager, and I am not the only one who has also walked away for the very same reason. You see Christianity . . . in my opinion are very bigoted, the philosophy behind these religions teach their believers their way is the only way, and your comments above prove that is also your belief.

 ". . . BUT, he never forced his own beliefs on anyone and that is one of the most important tenants of Buddhism still taught to this very day!!

 ". . . I understand the Christian religious beliefs I want absolutely nothing to do with any religion that does not except the beliefs of others, and that has more been directly responsible for more deaths than any other religion existing today. 
 

I agree with you; it's the epitome of hypocrisy for the clergy to preach peace and love, then bless the war. But we witnesses of YHWH has never killed a Catholic or Protestant because we have never gone to war. Period.
As for you feeling downhearted about YHWH approving of one way to be worshipped, get over it, pal - you are in no position to tell the maker how he should be worshiped. You got to be joking!!

 

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, larryp said:

I agree with you; it's the epitome of hypocrisy for the clergy to preach peace and love, then bless the war. But we witnesses of YHWH has never killed a Catholic or Protestant because we have never gone to war. Period.
As for you feeling downhearted about YHWH approving of one way to be worshipped, get over it, pal - you are in no position to tell the maker how he should be worshiped. You got to be joking!!

 

Ah, but when did the maker speak to you and tell you how he wanted YOU to relate to him? 

The bible is a set of writings by men( and a few women) At best it is how they understood and interpreted the word of god many thousands of years ago,  and a guide to a way of life with god 

I take note of it,  but only listen  to, and follow,  his word to (and for) me

No one needs a church, a priest, or even the bible, or other religious text.

  The truth is that "god" is in us, and we are in "god", and the connection is individual and personal   

You cant tell me how to be one with "god," and I cant tell you. 

 Remember always, that (if you  follow the bible)  the laws were created, from love,  to  serve us, We were not created to serve the law. 

[Guyver]

On 11/23/2020 at 7:26 PM, Manwon Lender said:

Thanks for acknowledging my post, and I just could not help myslef , I find it very funny that someone would ask a question like that here!!!!!!

Your post #170 was very well done.  Informative and inspirational.

[Grim Reaper 6]

21 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Your post #170 was very well done.  Informative and inspirational.

Hey my friend, thank you very much I am glad you feel that way. To me it was not nothing special really I was just speaking form my heart. 

Take Care my Friend, and I hope this finds you and yours Healthy, Happy, and Safe.

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hey my friend, thank you very much I am glad you feel that way. To me it was not nothing special really I was just speaking form my heart. 

Take Care my Friend, and I hope this finds you and yours Healthy, Happy, and Safe.

You brought back memories of my childhood.

My parents (oft expressed)    wish, was for us to grow up; healthy, happy and wise.  

I guess safety wasn't such an issue, way back then.