There's a remark Gramsci made that I can't locate right now - something to the effect that anyone who thinks the Trinitarian controversies in the early church - the arguments over 'homoousious' versus 'homoiousious' - had an economic basis is out of his (or possibly her) mind!

And this comes out of Marx and Engels .... not this particular example as far as I know but the general point.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

..... the best analysis of religion includes both an historical approach to religion - which I have tried to draw attention to in this thread - as well as an approach that takes account of the relative independence of something like religion

---

Who would disagree with this?

Actually, the philosophical tradition in which I was educated considered historical arguments almost irrelevant. So there are people who would take that position. But I don't think there are many people who would deny religion some independence (or at least that the causal relationship goes both ways, which may or may not amount to the same thing).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying....

In any case, I am talking to myself

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

A huge number of religious people the world over would argue that the purpose of prayer or meditation is not to recieve the direct intervention of god in their daily lives. Yet, the practice of prayer and meditation is fairly universal among religious people.

---

Ok, well you would also agree that religious practice, the world over, extends far beyond Christian practice, and that even these types of Baptists sects that believe in this kind of thing, are actually a very small contingent of religious people. In that light to me suggesting that a single case of this sort is indicative of anything substantial about religion in total, the world over, might be biasing the case, just a tad, no?

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I would argue that prayer, at least in the judeo-christian tradition, is a direct call for intervention from G-d. I would also question whether prayer and meditation are properly lumped together as similar or parallel practises.

---

quote:

---

Police are now preparing a report for prosecutors. However, legal action against the parents may be prevented by a Wisconsin state statute against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm.

The statute contains an exemption for what it refers to as "treatment through prayer".

---

Daily Telegraph (England) story

quote:

---

The state law that allows healing through prayer became an issue in 2003 when a two-year-old autistic child in Milwaukee was crushed to death during an attempted exorcism.

The "exorcist" was convicted on a far lesser charge than many people believed was appropriate.

The local district attorney urged legislators to remove the exemption but they failed to act on his advice.

---

There is, however, a tiny gleam of hope in this horrible story:

quote:

---

Social service officials interviewed the Neumanns' other three children, 16- and 13-year-old boys and a 15-year-old girl, on Wednesday, Sleeter said, and appointments with doctors were scheduled for the teens today. For now, Sleeter said, the Neumanns will not lose custody of their children during the death investigation.

---

quote:

---

Catchfire: I fail to see how putting your faith in God to cure your child's diabetes is any different from putting your faith in bloodletting.

---

That "more contemporary" example you've provided uncovers the placebo effect pretty well. It also points out some differences ...

quote:

---

Not surprisingly, placebos work best for conditions that have a subjective component to them – depression, anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome and pain. But it doesn't work for everything. It can't alter blood sugar levels in diabetics, can't mend a broken leg and it can't cure cancer – although Dr Kradin believes there may be rare instances where spontaneous remission may be down to placebos.

---

This is also interesting ...

quote:

---

Bizarrely, passivity is the key to a strong placebo response. Put yourself in the hand of a powerful individual and trust them to do you good. Small wonder that witch doctors have wielded such therapeutic power. "The less involved you are in actively thinking your way through a process, the more likely they are to have a good response," says Dr Kradin. "If one gets very active in controlling the disease, in my experience, it can have negative effects. It's exactly what healing used to be like in the past. The faith that people had in their physician was a critical part of their healing."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I do not think meditation and prayer are the same thing at all.

Further, though I am no huge fan of prayer it annoys me, when people think God is there to grant them their little whims, while millions around the world live in poverty and hunger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
yes, there are several thousand years of theological writing on the meaning /futility /contradictions of prayer, including esp. by Great Tormented Souls, such as Augustine and Pascal

---

Yes. And questions about God's relationship to the world and to suffering and evil are difficult. On the other hand, there's a natural human propensity to say, "help!"

Still sprinting on the way to another 1,000.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
...However, on your other point ... perhaps people who pray in the manner you describe also belong to a religion/church which has an anti-Universalist approach (only the elect are chosen, etc.) and can therefore consign millions to suffering in this world and eternal damnation in the next with the cheerful smile and untroubled conscience of the true believer.

---

It is just wrong, in my perception, in so many ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Yea, I would have to agree with remind about distinguishing meditation from prayer pretty clearly. Many Buddhists would make that point. Unitarian Universalists often include meditation as a regular part of their services without including prayer in the same way.

---

Really? Cause when we start getting into more arduous practice of prayer, of the kind made by Monks in monastaries, meditation cells, deliberate fasting, and other similar practices, I think we can see a lot of overlap in religious practice, between eastern medative techniques and western ones. How akin is repeating "hail mary full of grace" over and over again to a mantra?

Is the content of a mantra relevant to the object, really? As far as I can tell it is irrelevant nonsense, as is "hail mary full of grace."

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Meditation at it's furthest point, is actually silencing/quieting the mind's chatter completely, and being at peace with one's self, in one's self.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh, I know about them, I just do not practise any other lesser form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, in anycase, I think that we can see that there are substantial links, parallels between some forms of monastic prayer, and other meditative practices found around the world. Whichever is superior or inferior is not really the issue.

What I am trying to get across is that there may be some core objects involving spirit and spirtuality, embodied in concepts such as enlightenment and faith and the contemplation of the intangibilities of human experience that are similar in all religious endeavours, regardless of the institutional framework within which they are contained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What I am trying to get across is that there may be some core objects involving spirit and spirtuality, embodied in concepts such as enlightenment and faith and the contemplation of the intangibilities of human experience that are similar in all religious endeavours, regardless of the institutional framework within which they are contained.

---

Moreso, I am coming at Coyote's point about contested space, and the possibility that one of the problems with "left" ultra-rationalist discourse is that it abandons a primary locale of human social intercourse to the right. Relgion generally, has been rejected as antithetical to rationalist leftist discourse, and in its opposition, I think, has the left this space uncontested, and as a result we see the resurgence of right wing ideologies here, as well as a general rejection of rationalist baisis of much progressive thought in favour of anti-rationalist ideas such as creationism.

We can see that religious conceptions can be renovated and changed to accomodate new information, and scientific concepts, and even adjust long held moral prohibitions such as those against gay marriage and gay sex.

If we agree that these institutional frameworks are also the space where fundametal human emotional and "spiritual" needs are addressed, at least in some fashion, does it not make sense that the political terrain within them should be contested, not rejected entirely as terrain which is irrelevant.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Right. Well I am trying to clarify the discussion in terms of the role of religion in society, and its value to people, and how it persists despite the overall acceptance of "rationalist" discourse, which pretty much has been the theme of this debate so far.

Moreso, I am coming at Coyote's point about contested space, and the possibility that one of the problems with "left" ultra-rationalist discourse is that it abandons a primary locale of human social intercourse to the right. Relgion generally, has been rejected as antithetical to rationalist leftist discourse, and in its opposition, I think, has the left this space uncontested, and as a result we see the resurgence of right wing ideologies here, as well as a general rejection of rationalist baisis of much progressive thought in favour of anti-rationalist ideas such as creationism.

We can see that religious conceptions can be renovated and changed to accomodate new information, and scientific concepts, and even adjust long held moral prohibitions such as those against gay marriage and gay sex.

If we agree that these institutional frameworks are also the space where fundametal human emotional and "spiritual" needs are addressed, at least in some fashion, does it not make sense that the political terrain within them should be contested, not rejected entirely as terrain which is irrelevant.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

and how it persists despite the overall acceptance of "rationalist" discourse

---

So when we look for "meaning" in things or circumstance or even philosophical dreaming, it is not unreasonable that we might assume an intelligence greater than our own and with a purpose we can't quite understand.

However, while my thinking is shifting in many ways, I think atheists and believers must come to an understanding.

I think atheists must be prepared to condone the right of people to believe as they wish to believe and if their beliefs are sincere and do not hurt anyone, then, really, like anyone else, it ain't my business. Believe what you want.

And those with faith must respect me in the same way by keeping it none of my business. Don't impose your beliefs upon me and it remains none of my business.

The whole atheism/faith thing, I am beginning to believe, is just another false divide.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I think Dawkins' provides an excellent argument for that. As a species we have a remarkable ability to envision ourselves outside of are own bodies and an equally amazing ability to assign intelligence, personality and motive or intent to entirely inanimate things. Like blaming and kicking a chair as though it caused someone to stub a toe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I think atheists must be prepared to condone the right of people to believe as they wish to believe and if their beliefs are sincere and do not hurt anyone, then, really, like anyone else, it ain't my business. Believe what you want.

And those with faith must respect me in the same way by keeping it none of my business. Don't impose your beliefs upon me and it remains none of my business.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I agree.

But the problem remains, when religion demands a place in public education, in public institutions, in progressive movements... How does "live and let live" work in such debates?

---

quote:

---

But the problem remains, when religion demands a place in public education, in public institutions, in progressive movements... How does "live and let live" work in such debates?

---

At the point where religion imposes itself on me or my children, it ceases to be none of my business.

If a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu, or all of them, want to join with me in common cause, why do I care that they believe in Jesus or not? So long as I an not required to believe as they do, does it matter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
If a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu, or all of them, want to join with me in common cause, why do I care that they believe in Jesus or not? So long as I an not required to believe as they do, does it matter?

Or put another way, at -10 on a windy picket line, do you really care that the other guy freezing the line has a fish stuck to his car?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The point you are missing is that Religions are also our "public" institutions, and rather than demanding that public discourse be free of religion, you should be asserting that rationalist progressive discourse should be part of religion.

---

Just a few thoughts here, based on the few posts above. Much of the 'divide' that FM commented about , which Remind elaborated on I think is more in relation for the purposes of this discussion, "Right-wing" religious viewpoints which tend to be more dogmatic, outspoken, pushy, ultratheistic (man God in the sky) 'rules' based etc etc.
I haven't read Dawkins, except on the net but I have read Sam Harris, the End of Faith and agreed with him more then I disagreed. The main problem I had with it though was that when addressing Christianity as it sits now in NA was that he generalized what it was to be "Christian" with this more "right wing/fundemental form." Much of his analysis with regards to that in particular was bang on in my opinion. The 'Christianity' he was speaking about though was and still is completely foreign to me and would be to many others I know who belong to 'Christian' institutions.

Without delving into detail of my own personal beliefs, I don't label myself as 'Christian' per say, but much of my spiritual life is based on that background. I suppose a label would fall under something like 'progressive, eclectic Christian' I don't consider myself following a 'religion' in the overall sense.
Right now there is a growing divide in the 'Christian' community between this 'right wing/fundemental' form and what can loosely be called 'progressive' or 'liberal' forms. There are major differences and its diverging into what some are calling a quiet reformation similar to the Reformation of the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
There is resistance to co-operation between activists within faith groups and atheists.

---

In the movement where I have been most active (trade unions and some solidarity movements), I can't ever remember experiencing such "resistance". What forms would it take? In the union and the workplace, for sure, the issue never arises. You can work alongside with and fight battles alongside with other workers for years on end without ever knowing or caring what "faith" they have or haven't got. Everyone knows that the movement isn't the place to talk about those issues, because they are inherently divisive when taken outside the faith group itself.

If someone recommended a "faith caucus" within the union (any union I know), they would be trounced. They wouldn't get a seconder. But you know what? It has never happened. Because the struggle is a serious matter, and unity is paramount. It's an instinct that was hard-won over the decades and centuries, in the face of divide-and-rule tactics of our enemies.

We do have, and indeed encourage, caucuses and wings and committees of workers who are marginalized because of their sex or sexual orientation or age or colour. But we don't have workers marginalized because of their religion.

quote:

---

Frustrated Mess: There is resistance to co-operation between activists within faith groups and atheists.

---

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

One of the major differences between these different lines is that you simply won't find people 'wearing their religion/faith/spirituality on their sleeve' like you tend to find with the more fundamental forms. So you aren't even going to nescessarily even recognize it. Likely it's already part of rational progressive discourse in terms of individuals because rational progressive discourse is one of the things that I think is a driving factor in the change within the tradition itself.

---

I see this last point, which is one of the reasons that I have a problem with driving home the the "proslethyzing" atheist line as first principle to progressive discussion. I think it alienates many people who silently hold religious conviction, even though they don't necessarily make point of confronting it, since they don't want to be seen as pushing there convictions on other people.

I don't think that kind of environement does much to empower progressive discourse within religious insitutions, rather the opposite, it feeds the anti-rationalist forces.

By the way, yes I do read Tikkun, and know who Rabbi Lerner is, but that is a discussion for another thread.

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Can I quote this? It has to be the understatement of the millenium, considering the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the current engagement of its leadership, esp. in developing countries.

---

Poke at the Pope [POPE PAUL VI]
(by Donovan)

"have you ever seen a picture of pope paul
have you ever asked yourself this question

would you trust this man with your soul now
would you trust this man ask yourself now

his eyes are sunken and his cheeks are hollow
while you dig the poor of the world they follow

he hoarding up their gold in the vatican
would you trust this man ask yourself now

a poke at the pope that's what we're havin'(ter)

ave maria

do you remember when the floods hit italy
how all the things they treasured most were destroyed

all the paintings and the worshipped images
'cos they lost their faith in the real god

he's goin' down and he's goin' down fast
you really didn't think the ignorance could last

all the little children are learning
and the constellation is turning

a poke at the pope that's what we're havin'(ter)

mumbling by the tumbling tide
the king of america humbly cried

save my soul save it soon
the king of america fell in swoon

oh yea my honey
oh yea my money

But if your point is that other religions have been more tolerant of atheism, that's true and I should have phrased my quip better.
And if it's that most Roman Catholics are way less fascist than their infallible Leader ("Tell me great leader but please make it quick, is there a hole for me toget sick in"), yah that's true (but was also true of Germans during WW II).

[ 28 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

There has been real go arounds in our BCGEU Local with Christian fundamentalists, and yes they have their own support group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Unionist , you and I have had this discussion before, you cannot speak on behalf of all unions, nor all the membership.

---

Where did I do that? I gave my own experience, didn't I? Re-read my post.

quote:

---

There has been real go arounds in our BCGEU Local with Christian fundamentalists, and yes they have their own support group.

---

Your local recognizes a "support group" within the union for Christian "fundamentalists"? Why the hell would any union local do that? That is a huge mistake.

By the way, I have no idea what "Christian fundamentalist" means - usually it's a name given by people who don't like them, right? What do they call themselves?

quote:

---

In fact, I would go so far as saying here in BC, they are infiltrating many independant living organizations. So this nmeans that they will be either BCGEU, UFCW, and perhaps a couple of other unions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

I haven't read Dawkins, except on the net but I have read Sam Harris, the End of Faith and agreed with him more then I disagreed... ...The 'Christianity' he was speaking about though was and still is completely foreign to me and would be to many others I know who belong to 'Christian' institutions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Your local recognizes a "support group" within the union for Christian "fundamentalists"? Why the hell would any union local do that? That is a huge mistake.

---

quote:

---

By the way, I have no idea what "Christian fundamentalist" means - usually it's a name given by people who don't like them, right? What do they call themselves?

---

Cueball, here is the link to the NDP and religion last thread, it will take you back to all the others, all 10 of them.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007053

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
They have to recognize it, the company/org did first.

---

Unions have a specific function, directly tied to employment that defines membership, in this fashion they are not even really public institutions, and they can, and often do restrict subjects of discussion to those deemed relevant to their primary motive. They also sometimes step out into the public discourse on more general issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Unions have a specific function, directly tied to employment that defines membership, in this fashion they are not even really public institutions, and they can, and often do restrict subjects of discussion to those deemed relevant to their primary motive.

---

Well, that's what employers and governments and right-wing "business unionists" have always tried to tell us. But thankfully the union movement has never accepted those restrictions. Unions are and always have been involved in every sphere of life, from solidarity to human rights to community action to political lobbying to charity. Much of the progressive legislation in many spheres today was pioneered with unions in the forefront. And we ally with all groups, including religious groups, that share the common goals.

But one thing we never do is allow religious clubs or factions within the union. Ever.

quote:

---

Parties, however, are general political tools subject to the interests of its members, and are intended specifically to guide discussion of the overall political discourse, of which religion is a part.

---

Of course religion has to be discussed - as in, for example, how to stop expanded funding of religious schools, or how to strengthen freedom of conscience and combat attacks on religious groups (Islamophobia for example), or how to stop religious theories of creation being taught in science class, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]
By the way, I have no idea what "Christian fundamentalist" means - usually it's a name given by people who don't like them, right? What do they call themselves?

---

I'll speak generalizations here.

Some have no issue with calling themselves 'fundementalists'. Evengelical types as Remind commented on are generally of the mindset but not all. Think of the USian Christian Right. Think IDers, creationists, 'morality' police, the 'social conservative wing' of the Canadian Conservative party pushing anti-abortion etc etc. Think Christian based nationalism. In terms of what the call themselves as official names it's varies there is a spectrum within that form. Even within specific denomenations you will find some be more fundemental then others. The current dispute in the Anglican church is an example of that playing out.
The wikipedia article is actually quite decent in giving a basic history and overview of it's parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

"Fundementalsim" which also is sometimes also explained as more 'literalist' theological forms is actually a modern theological phenomenom though the name tries to evoke that it's harkening back to the earlier times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

"Fundementalsim" which also is sometimes also explained as more 'literalist' theological forms is actually a modern theological phenomenom though the name tries to evoke that it's harkening back to the earlier times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Meh. If special interest groups are allowed to form caucuses in your party, then religious people might as well do it too, if they like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:

Yes, generalizations neglect the uniqueness of human emotion. Is not the Christianity that Sam Harris is referring be Christian Nationalism? Or simply another form of Nationalism than an actual Christian movement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No. Groups that are marginalized and need special empowerment or protection - ok - like women, LGBT, youth, persons of colour... But not divisions on the basis of religion. There are churches/mosques/temples/synagogues for that purpose. When people get up in a party meeting - as in a union meeting - they must not be labelled by their faith.

---

Maybe there are some exceptions, but "fundamentalist" is a word used by someone's opponents to describe them. It's basically a swear word - a dismissive word.

If it means, "caring more about some supposed scriptural text than about human beings", say so.

If it means, "taking their religion incredibly seriously in their daily lives", say so.

If it means, "being particularly exclusivist vis-a-vis other religions and denominations", say so.

But really, it's just a swear word. Think of the word "terrorist". No one calls the anti-Nazi partisan organizations of WWII (think of the free Poles, the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, etc. etc.) "terrorists", yet they fought no differently, with the few means they had, then many enemies of Bush, Brown and Harper in many countries of the world today.

Guess what? No one calls themselves "terrorists".

See my point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, its really hard to see how you are making these distinctions between special interest groups. Basicly it seems you are pushing your atheist agenda, and using secularism as device to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
ElizaQ, with all due respect I had a hard time following your post.

Maybe there are some exceptions, but "fundamentalist" is a word used by someone's opponents to describe them. It's basically a swear word - a dismissive word.

If it means, "caring more about some supposed scriptural text than about human beings", say so.

If it means, "taking their religion incredibly seriously in their daily lives", say so.

If it means, "being particularly exclusivist vis-a-vis other religions and denominations", say so.

But really, it's just a swear word. Think of the word "terrorist". No one calls the anti-Nazi partisan organizations of WWII (think of the free Poles, the Warsaw Ghetto fighters, etc. etc.) "terrorists", yet they fought no differently, with the few means they had, then many enemies of Bush, Brown and Harper in many countries of the world today.

Guess what? No one calls themselves "terrorists".

See my point?

---

No disrespect taken and I do see you're point. I was trying to explain without delving into the details of specific theology and to explain what people tend to mean when they use the word. That can get quite complex which is why I commented in generalities. My examples were based on specific examples of outward actions and groups that people would likely be familiar with rather then the details of the theology that drives it.

You are correct in that 'fundementalist' is also used as a derogatory term by opponents, but it is also used by some to describe themselves in individual discussion which is why I used 'some.'

There term was actually used to describe the specific movement which really took root in the early 20th century with "The Fundamentals or The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" From there it evolved allow several different lines and particularly into what we see today as "The Christian Right" hence the usage of the word to describe it The general form. That the word itself has also evolved into a 'derogatory' is more an example of the reaction against the outward actions that we see in the socio-political sphere today. In usage it's become more of a generalization of a certain type of 'mindest' and 'type of theology'.
When and if I use the word I'm generally referring to the "Christian Right."
Personally I wish there was a better word to use to describe the general form.

quote:

---

If it means, "caring more about some supposed scriptural text than about human beings", say so.

---

quote:

---

If it means, "taking their religion incredibly seriously in their daily lives", say so.

---

quote:

---

If it means, "being particularly exclusivist vis-a-vis other religions and denominations", say so.

---

quote:

---

By the way, my tagline is ironic, because Bill Blaikie calls people "secular fundamentalists" who believe in freedom of conscience but also believe in total separation of church and state.[/qb]

---

It is ironic.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
When and if I use the word I'm generally referring to the "Christian Right."

---

Then the word is flawed and should not be used.

If the Christian Right and some imams and some rabbis and some religio-political groups etc. are all called "fundamentalist" (not by me - I don't use the term except ironically - but in general usage), then either:

1. Identify what they all have in common; or
2. Stop using the word as if it has some descriptive objectivity, and come out and say honestly what it is you don't like about each one.

"Terrorist" has slightly more objective definability (say, violent actions deliberately targetting civilian non-combattants to achieve political aims? something like that?). But the reason it should be used sparingly and carefully is that NO ONE uses the word to describe political or resistance movements they support - only the ones they want to smear. It too has lost any objective quality it once may have had.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No, I am pointing to a reality - that no political parties in our country have such clubs based on separate religions. There's a reason for that, which you obviously don't understand, so I'll leave you to stew in your feelings about me.

---

This is to both Cueball and Unionist. I think I'm sorta in the middle on this subject and of course my own bias play into it.
The biggest problem I would have with say a union having a group based on a particular religion, is that there are major difference within 'religions' itself. If say someone wanted to have a 'Christian' group. My first question would be alright what type are you talking about here? I would be very wary overall as to the reason why the need for a specific group. I'm actually very uncomfortable with people who feel need to act within the confines of such a label in certain spheres.

Do you see that an effort to set up religious caucuses (and let's assume there are many of them - corresponding exactly to every nuance and sect) might be disruptive and divisive?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Let's talk about the sudden appearance of an anit-religious movement, one that is not just secular, but specifically "anti-religious" pushing its agenda. That did not exist 50 years ago.

---

There is no anti-religious movement in the trade unions.

There is no anti-religious movement in the NDP.

There is no anti-religious movement in the anti-war and anti-globalization and solidarity movements.

The whole push, if anything, is to introduce such group phenomena where they have never existed before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Then the word is flawed and should not be used.

If the Christian Right and some imams and some rabbis and some religio-political groups etc. are all called "fundamentalist" (not by me - I don't use the term except ironically - but in general usage), then either:

1. Identify what they all have in common; or
2. Stop using the word as if it has some descriptive objectivity, and come out and say honestly what it is you don't like about each one.

"Terrorist" has slightly more objective definability (say, violent actions deliberately targetting civilian non-combattants to achieve political aims? something like that?). But the reason it should be used sparingly and carefully is that NO ONE uses the word to describe political or resistance movements they support - only the ones they want to smear. It too has lost any objective quality it once may have had.

I appreciate your historical indication, but I'll bet you can't find any significant religious trend today that calls itself "fundamentalist". It's a swear word.

---

Well Atheist in many circles is also used as a derogatory swear word as well. (Not in my books at all) I get you're point but I think you are missing mine and it looks like I missed your point in the original question as well. I was only trying to give a general overview of who and what people are talking about when using the word, because I thought that was an honest question and not some semi-sarcastic comment about the use of the word itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Nonsense. Give a single example of any proposal to restrict existing participation by religious groups in any social or political organization.

The whole push, if anything, is to introduce such group phenomena where they have never existed before.

You think the NDP Faith and Social Justice Commission was a "reaction" to some atheists trying to purge the party of believers?

---

As I said before, unions are different from political parties. If you really thought that having religious caucuses and discussing religious differences, including Atheism, was divisive in all social organizations, then you would apply that policy here, and just not foist your opinions on the general public. But Rabble, a secular institution, but in the public domain, is much like a political party that is also a secular instituition and in the public domain, unlike a union, which is a secular institution but essentially a privat group.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Let's talk about the sudden appearance of an anit-religious movement, one that is not just secular, but specifically "anti-religious" pushing its agenda. That did not exist 50 years ago.

---

Personally, I do not believe that such an accusation can apply.

50 years ago a majority of people did not recognize, nor understand the complicit actions of religion in being agents of the patriarchial colonialist state. Nor in fact did the majority recognize that ours was a colonial paternalistic state. As a nmatter of fact, I would say the majority still do not recognize Canada as a colonial nation, or if they do they see nothing wrong with it.

They believed 50 years ago, stores/bars should be closed on the Christian Sabbath and other Christian holidays. They said prayers in school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
As I said before, unions are different from political parties. If you really thought that having religious caucuses and discussing religious differences, including Atheism, was divisive in all social organizations, then you would apply that policy here, and just not foist your opinions on the general public. But Rabble, a secular institution, but in the public domain, is much like a political party that is also a secular instituition and in the public domain, unlike a union, which is a secular institution but essentially a privat group.

---

What a cop-out.

Give an example of any attempt in any union, or the NDP, or any progressive organization in this country, to restrict existing participation by religious groups.

If you can't (and you can't), then why would you invent some "anti-religious movement" that needs to be resisted?

Are you talking about some books that have been published?

If you're worried about my post, why not petition the moderators to set up Religious Fora where people can discuss angels and such to their hearts' content, without fear of being ridiculed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
ElizaQ, let's talk about a union which has existed for (say) 50 years with no religious subdivisions or clubs or groups - just doing its work.

Do you see that an effort to set up religious caucuses (and let's assume there are many of them - corresponding exactly to every nuance and sect) might be disruptive and divisive?

I can tell you that no such things exist, and I believe there's a good reason for it.

---

In anycase, the NDP caucus is an "inter-faith" caucus, not a caucus for any individual faith or religion.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Those who pushed for a more secular society were not considered anti-religious back then, they were rightfully considered to be seeking a more equal Canada.

---

I wish I had said that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Personally, I do not believe that such an accusation can apply.

50 years ago a majority of people did not recognize, nor understand the complicit actions of religion in being agents of the patriarchial colonialist state. Nor in fact did the majority recognize that ours was a colonial paternalistic state. As a nmatter of fact, I would say the majority still do not recognize Canada as a colonial nation, or if they do they see nothing wrong with it.

They believed 50 years ago, stores/bars should be closed on the Christian Sabbath and other Christian holidays. They said prayers in school.

Those who pushed for a more secular society were not considered anti-religious back then, they were rightfully considered to be seeking a more equal Canada.

---

Yeah, secularism is outmoded for sure. Time to rectify the historical inequity by introducing God into our lives.

What is so unsecular about an "inter-faith" caucus. You still are refusing to acknowledge my point which is that political parties are a completely different kind of social organization from a union.

In all likelyhood an inter-faith caucus would likely come to the same conclusion the original inter-faith caucuses came too after the reformation, that being that certain social institution must be seperated from specific religious views.

[ 29 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What is so unsecular about an "inter-faith" caucus.

---

Nothing per se. But this one was set up in explicit opposition to "secular fundamentalists". If it were just a kind of organizing committee, where people (of all religions and atheists) sat together to work out recruitment and infiltration techniques to win over religious people - fine. But the NDP Commission explicitly is for religious people and has the explicit aim of influencing the party's policies. That is divisive and destructive to a progressive political organization. Such people are free to organize on their own, but when blessed by the Party, the damage begins. The underlying unity of the Party based on common social, political and economic aims is called into question.

quote:

---

You still are refusing to acknowledge my point which is that political parties are a completely different kind of social organization from a union.

---

"Completely different"? Of course not. Both are organizations of people united around a common cause, and both aim at changing or rectifying the balance of power, either in a workplace or the economy as a whole or the society. Both have aims which include economic, social and political ones.

Your suggestion that they are "completely different" feeds into the capitalists' insistence that unions must restrict their attention to wages and working conditions. Even the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that unions deal with all issues of the society and internationally - as when Merv Lavigne tried to withhold dues because he didn't like his union's support for the NDP and disarmament:

quote:

---

The appellant, a community college teacher, is required to pay dues to respondent Union under a mandatory check‑off clause (art. 12) in the collective agreement between it and respondent Council of Regents, the bargaining agent for college employees. Such clauses, which incorporate the Rand formula, are permitted by s. 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. The appellant objected to certain expenditures made by the Union such as contributions to the NDP and disarmament campaigns and applied for declaratory relief. The trial judge declared that ss. 51, 52 and 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the provisions of the collective agreement were of no force and effect in so far as they compelled appellant to pay dues to the union for any purposes not directly related to collective bargaining. He found that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied, that appellant's freedom of association guaranteed by s. 2(d) had been infringed and that the infringement was not justified under s. 1. There was no infringement of appellant's freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. It found that the use of the dues by the Union was a private activity by a private organization and hence beyond the reach of the Charter. In any event there had been no infringement of appellant's freedom of association, since he remained free to associate with others and oppose the Union. The court agreed with the trial judge's finding that appellant's freedom of expression was not infringed.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

---

Source.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Nothing per se. But this one was set up in explicit opposition to "secular fundamentalists".

---

[

quote:

---

If it were just a kind of organizing committee, where people (of all religions and atheists) sat together to work out recruitment and infiltration techniques to win over religious people - fine.

---

quote:

---

But the NDP Commission explicitly is for religious people and has the explicit aim of influencing the party's policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
That is this thread. Now we are discussing these ideas in terms of how they effect progressive politics and how they are applied, not simply debating various scriptures, and their value, or lack thereof.

---

Who was "debating various scriptures" in this thread? Seriously, who?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, I didn't mean to revive our debate here about the F&SJC. You have your viewpoint and I have mine on what it is and how it came into being. Let's go back to this thread.

---

Unionist, I must take exception to this, you were bascically back dooring it into the discussion. Discussing it, without discussing it, and trying to create an conceptual framework around how you view it, and how you want others to perceive it.

Now that it was brought back out into the open, you want to me refrain from overt discussions of it. Sorry, but let's deal with it again in the open if we must, but I am not going to let covert discussions of it remain so.

There is no hypothetical here afterall, now is there?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Unionist, I must take exception to this, you were bascically back dooring it into the discussion.

---