What's new
By:
Filters

Question Regarding Politics and Religion

fishonjazz said:
I think I would really really really like george bush to hang out with and go fishing with or something.
I would probably like him more than any other president in history on a personal level.
Click to expand...

I would love to hang out with any of the Presidents. Even Trump. Imagine having the opportunity to glimpse their perspective first hand! Yeah, I'd love that.
 
I'm old enough to remember JFK, but was not old enough to vote at the time. Perhaps in part because I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, I do remember that his Roman Catholicism was an issue in the 1960 election. Some people were worried a Roman Catholic President would be loyal to the Pope, and not the Constitution, and that was the issue. That seems silly now.

Other then for funerals, I have not been in a church or practiced the faith in which I was raised since my youth. As a young man, I became interested in studying the so-called "inner traditions" of many major faiths, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sufism(the mystical tradition of Islam), and I also studied shamanism. I loved reading the writings of the mystics of these traditions. They wrote of directly experiencing God, and I wanted to know what that was all about. I decided the major faiths were all very similar in their inner traditions. Before that, I had briefly been an atheist, and was proud of being smarter then all the adults who were church goers. That was arrogant and foolish of me, but, that phase was very brief. Now, I just want to adhere to the Golden Rule, and I know I fall short all the time, and I am very sorry to see that religion has been such a divisive force among humans throughout history. That's why I looked into those inner traditions so closely, to find a commonality. There is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States these days, and it's understandable, but I know I found Love to be at the core of the writings of the Sufi mystics, some of the most beautiful mystical poetry I came across. I have long been baffled by the inner tradition of Love at the heart of the world's major faiths and at the same time a history of intolerance and war between their organized branches. It is one sad fact.

In all the elections in which I voted, I honestly never inquired as to what denomination a candidate practiced. It just never crossed my mind. I honestly could not tell you which denomination any of the Presidents have belonged to, other then Kennedy. I do know candidate Romney was a Mormon, but I guess that was because some had wanted to make that an issue. So, from a personal perspective, a potential President's denomination has never been an issue to me. I do think it might actually be good to see an American Muslim elected President, because it would have to mean we had developed an acceptance and tolerance that is largely missing now. It will be a long time before that happens, though. But I would no more fear an American Muslim would impose Sharia law, I think that's a ludicrous fear, then I would have expected an American Catholic to be first and foremost a Papist.

I am fascinated by the branches of Christianity that have developed here in America. In all honesty, some bother me, because I see a level of intolerance toward others that bothers me. But separation of church and state is a bedrock principle here, even though I know we are experiencing issues in our culture wars that often stem from the combatants religious beliefs, and it's been impossible to keep those out of our politics. That saddens me, but I must accept that we humans are not always wise enough to focus on what we share in common, and the Golden Rule is not always first and foremost in people's minds, and we seem to be a flawed species. Hope I have not strayed too far from the central questions of this thread....
 
Red said:
I'm old enough to remember JFK, but was not old enough to vote at the time. Perhaps in part because I was raised in a Roman Catholic family, I do remember that his Roman Catholicism was an issue in the 1960 election. Some people were worried a Roman Catholic President would be loyal to the Pope, and not the Constitution, and that was the issue. That seems silly now.

Other then for funerals, I have not been in a church or practiced the faith in which I was raised since my youth. As a young man, I became interested in studying the so-called "inner traditions" of many major faiths, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sufism(the mystical tradition of Islam), and I also studied shamanism. I loved reading the writings of the mystics of these traditions. They wrote of directly experiencing God, and I wanted to know what that was all about. I decided the major faiths were all very similar in their inner traditions. Before that, I had briefly been an atheist, and was proud of being smarter then all the adults who were church goers. That was arrogant and foolish of me, but, that phase was very brief. Now, I just want to adhere to the Golden Rule, and I know I fall short all the time, and I am very sorry to see that religion has been such a divisive force among humans throughout history. That's why I looked into those inner traditions so closely, to find a commonality. There is a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States these days, and it's understandable, but I know I found Love to be at the core of the writings of the Sufi mystics, some of the most beautiful mystical poetry I came across. I have long been baffled by the inner tradition of Love at the heart of the world's major faiths and at the same time a history of intolerance and war between their organized branches. It is one sad fact.

In all the elections in which I voted, I honestly never inquired as to what denomination a candidate practiced. It just never crossed my mind. I honestly could not tell you which denomination any of the Presidents have belonged to, other then Kennedy. I do know candidate Romney was a Mormon, but I guess that was because some had wanted to make that an issue. So, from a personal perspective, a potential President's denomination has never been an issue to me. I do think it might actually be good to see an American Muslim elected President, because it would have to mean we had developed an acceptance and tolerance that is largely missing now. It will be a long time before that happens, though. But I would no more fear an American Muslim would impose Sharia law, I think that's a ludicrous fear, then I would have expected an American Catholic to be first and foremost a Papist.

I am fascinated by the branches of Christianity that have developed here in America. In all honesty, some bother me, because I see a level of intolerance toward others that bothers me. But separation of church and state is a bedrock principle here, even though I know we are experiencing issues in our culture wars that often stem from the combatants religious beliefs, and it's been impossible to keep those out of our politics. That saddens me, but I must accept that we humans are not always wise enough to focus on what we share in common, and the Golden Rule is not always first and foremost in people's minds, and we seem to be a flawed species. Hope I have not strayed too far from the central questions of this thread....
Click to expand...

I want to say, that for someone who professes to believe that the Golden Rule is a good standard for good living, my own behavior at times on this forum, with respect to negative comments toward posters who adhere to different political/social beliefs then myself, is clear proof of how deeply flawed I am myself as a human being. But, these are very difficult times in which we live, and I'm as far removed from perfect as any human I know. I am passionate in my opinions, but not always proud in how I express them.
 
Red said:
I want to say, that for someone who professes to believe that the Golden Rule is a good standard for good living, my own behavior at times on this forum, with respect to negative comments toward posters who adhere to different political/social beliefs then myself, is clear proof of how deeply flawed I am myself as a human being. But, these are very difficult times in which we live, and I'm as far removed from perfect as any human I know. I am passionate in my opinions, but not always proud in how I express them.
Click to expand...
Class act
 
JazzGal said:
I might have to think about a Pastafarian. Still, as long as he/she didn't expect me to worship any noodly beings and pass laws that strainers are required headgear, I might be able to work around it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

You NEVER put the Holy Strainer on your head!! What the hell are you thinking?!? I am seriously triggered right now.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You NEVER put the Holy Strainer on your head!! What the hell are you thinking?!? I am seriously triggered right now.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/pasta-strainer-license-photo-trnd/index.html

You'll probably never see a driver's license photo quite like this.

It's of a man with a metal colander on his head.

That's the driver's license photo of Sean Corbett of Chandler, Arizona. And getting permission for the image to be used took some doing.
He said he went to several Arizona motor vehicle locations for two years before he found one that would let him take the photo with the strainer on his head.

"It's kind of been a personal mission to keep pushing and not let the naysayers say I can't," Corbett told CNN affiliate KNXV.
So why did he insist on being photographed with the colander on his head? Because of his religion, sort of.

Corbett calls himself a "pastafarian," who wears the item as part of his religious headgear.

"Pastafarianism is part of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which says the world was created 5,000 years ago by a Flying Spaghetti Monster," Corbett said.

If that sounds, well, a little hokey, it's supposed to be.

Corbett admits pastafarianism is more satirical than reverent.

Most states require people to take their driver's license photos free of headgear or other items, but exceptions are sometimes made for religious reasons. So that's why Corbett feels he should be able to wear the pasta strainer in his photo.

However, a spokesman with the Arizona Department of Transportation told KNXV that while some exceptions are made for religious headwear, Corbett's colander getup probably shouldn't have been allowed, so the state is going to void the photo and driver's license.

If that happens, Corbett says he's prepared to wage a legal battle for the right to be photographed with kitchenware on his head.
Click to expand...
 
LogGrad98 said:
You NEVER put the Holy Strainer on your head!! What the hell are you thinking?!? I am seriously triggered right now.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/us/pasta-strainer-license-photo-trnd/index.html

TW: You may want to avoid the picture if it is too triggering.

You'll probably never see a driver's license photo quite like this.

It's of a man with a metal colander on his head.

That's the driver's license photo of Sean Corbett of Chandler, Arizona. And getting permission for the image to be used took some doing.
He said he went to several Arizona motor vehicle locations for two years before he found one that would let him take the photo with the strainer on his head.

"It's kind of been a personal mission to keep pushing and not let the naysayers say I can't," Corbett told CNN affiliate KNXV.
So why did he insist on being photographed with the colander on his head? Because of his religion, sort of.

Corbett calls himself a "pastafarian," who wears the item as part of his religious headgear.

"Pastafarianism is part of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which says the world was created 5,000 years ago by a Flying Spaghetti Monster," Corbett said.

If that sounds, well, a little hokey, it's supposed to be.

Corbett admits pastafarianism is more satirical than reverent.

Most states require people to take their driver's license photos free of headgear or other items, but exceptions are sometimes made for religious reasons. So that's why Corbett feels he should be able to wear the pasta strainer in his photo.

However, a spokesman with the Arizona Department of Transportation told KNXV that while some exceptions are made for religious headwear, Corbett's colander getup probably shouldn't have been allowed, so the state is going to void the photo and driver's license.

If that happens, Corbett says he's prepared to wage a legal battle for the right to be photographed with kitchenware on his head.
Click to expand...
 
Siro said:
I'm sorry but I can't believe there is someone out there who thinks the pro-choice position is some eternal and universal norm. As opposed to a very recent Western norm.

It is incredible.

I really miss NAOS. We only have a couple of good thinkers left. :(
Click to expand...

actually, Siro, I think YOU have it backwards - the advent of laws against pregnancy termination are fairly recent (within the last 150 years or so for the most part)

back before there was anything even close to "pro" choice or "pro" life, abortions took place in all societies and cultures around the world - there may, in some specific cases, have been some taboos against terminating a pregnancy - but in general, it was a fairly accepted practice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

...19th-century medicine saw tremendous advances in the fields of surgery, anaesthesia, and sanitation. Social attitudes towards abortion shifted during this period under the influence of Victorian morality, and abortion, especially in the English-speaking world, was made illegal...
Click to expand...
 
saw this interesting article recently, about a rise in activism among the religious "left"

seems pertinent to this topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/us/politics/politics-religion-liberal-william-barber.html

Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years.
Now They Want in the Game.

Faith leaders whose politics fall to the left of center are getting
more involved in politics to fight against President Trump’s policies.
Click to expand...

...After 40 years in which the Christian right has dominated the influence of organized religion on American politics — souring some people on religion altogether, studies show — left-leaning faith leaders are hungry to break the right’s grip on setting the nation’s moral agenda.

Frustrated by Christian conservatives’ focus on reversing liberal successes in legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage, those on the religious left want to turn instead to what they see as truly fundamental biblical imperatives — caring for the poor, welcoming strangers and protecting the earth — and maybe even change some minds about what it means to be a believer.

“We’re in a real battle for the soul of faith, of Christianity, of this nation,” said the Rev. Troy Jackson, executive director of the Amos Project, a multifaith social-justice coalition in Cincinnati.

The last time the religious left made this much noise was in protesting the Vietnam War, when the members of the clergy were mostly white men. Now, those in the forefront include blacks and Latinos, women and gays, along with a new wave of activist Catholics inspired by Pope Francis. And they include large contingents of Jews, Muslims and also Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists in some cities — a reflection of the country’s religious diversity.

Most surprising of all, perhaps, is that religious progressives are being joined at the ramparts by a noticeable number of energized young evangelicals.

Such a loose alliance of people of many faiths, many causes — and no small number of intractable disagreements — may never rival the religious right in its cohesion, passion or political influence. And its mutually standoffish relationship with the Democratic Party, dating to the 1970s, stands in stark contrast to Christian conservatives’ sway over the Republican Party....
Click to expand...

the religious "right" is one of the primary reasons I seldom vote Republican, and on those rare occasions when I do, I hold my nose...


we need balance, and we haven't had much of it in recent decades
 
moevillini said:
saw this interesting article recently, about a rise in activism among the religious "left"

seems pertinent to this topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/us/politics/politics-religion-liberal-william-barber.html





the religious "right" is one of the primary reasons I seldom vote Republican, and on those rare occasions when I do, I hold my nose...


we need balance, and we haven't had much of it in recent decades
Click to expand...

The religious right's crusade against women's rights, immigrants, and gay marriage may very well be their undoing. The decades worth of attacks by James Dobson, Phyillis Schlafly, and Operation Rescue, which created the religious right in the 70s and 80s in response to Civil Rights Movements for women and minorities, may very well have doomed the movement for the future as young people do not tend to be supportive of restricting women's rights, xenophobia, and gay marriage bans.
 
Rubashov said:
The aim of good government should be to ensure that minorities whatever they may be do not suffer disadvantage due to membership of that minority group. Its not about promoting their interests but more protecting them from being disadvantaged by the majority. Most states have something along the lines of a Human Rights Commission, and a body of law that penalises discrimination. For the most part these cases are hard to prove and organisation like the HRC are toothless tigers.
Click to expand...

Meh. I'm more of a melting pot type of guy.
 
Pet Peeve thread: I still get dumb *** post shares from family on FB that proclaim this a Christian nation for XYZ reasons like founding fathers, Declaration of Independence, "In God We Trust" on money, blah, blah, blah.

These kids are too dumb to realize every time these things were added were to gain political support within the environment. President Benjamin Harrison's Pledge of Allegiance was just that.
 
franklin said:
Pet Peeve thread: I still get dumb *** post shares from family on FB that proclaim this a Christian nation for XYZ reasons like founding fathers, Declaration of Independence, "In God We Trust" on money, blah, blah, blah.

These kids are too dumb to realize every time these things were added were to gain political support within the environment. President Benjamin Harrison's Pledge of Allegiance was just that.
Click to expand...

and in the case of the Pledge, the phrase "under God" was not even part of the original pledge - it was added in the 50's during another repressionist era in American history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top