Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[cupper]

Before anybody makes the joke, yes, I am admitting that I don't know everything.

Don't you just hate f'ing-I-don't-know-it-alls?

;D

 

[ballz]

And we've already established that not all atheists (or rationalists) take liberties with history and science.  But, assertions that Galileo discovered the Earth to be spherical, that he was jailed for promoting heliocentrism and that atheists have never harmed anyone to promote their agendas prove that, at least some, do.

Once again, you always fall back to trying to measure the good's and bad's, and once again, it's stupid. Every major religion has tried to take liberties with history and science, such as the Texas School Board trying to erase Jefferson from history because he coined the term "separation of the church and state."

As for Galileo, there's always three versions of the truth. For the record, he was charged with "heresy," "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned."1

That is a direct translation from the church's documents.

1. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Available online here http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html

 

[McG]

... my 2c on the study: It shows that the various religions continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks: It's not acceptable anymore to indoctrinate them into hating and not trusting other religions, so they switch target to the one they can all agree on (and get back to "majority" status).

No.  It most certainly does not show that religions "continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks."  As I pointed out, the study does not show an active, conscious or deliberate effort on the part of organized religions to target anyone or anything.  What the study shows is something (mostly) unorganized at the level of the individuals but which can be measured at the aggregate level.

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I'd be surprised if people would have trust issues with me, if I played as free and loose with the facts as the New Atheist movement does.  Just a thought...

I assume this bit of verbal irony is the hyperbole to which you refer? 

 

[cupper]

Just a thought...

Reminds me of the radio commercial I hear from time to time for a local non denominational evangelical church. The pastor tells a story or parable, and always end with "Not a sermon, just a thought".

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.

Bruce

 

[daftandbarmy]

This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.

Bruce

That would make a fine Christmas Festivus present.

 

[xena]

You've stated on numerous occasions from your first post to your last post about how it should be no surprise that atheists are viewed the way they are by religious people, and then tried to justify it in numerous, equally stupid ways, such as how they don't have morals, and how Stalin was an atheist, and how they're liars, blah blah blah.

Well, atheists are the opposite of theists, are they not?  As such, it seems natural (although not proper to Chrisitan morality, but human nature being what it is...) that a certain level of antipathy exist between the two camps, no?  It's not justified, but it still shouldn't surprise anyone with two consecutive clues.

As far as "stupid" arguments go, you're entitled to your opinion of my arguments.  It doesn't make your analysis necessarily right, but there you are.  If my words gave you the impression that I thought that atheists didn't have morals, I either mis-spoke (I say that because I don't have access to my previous posts on this thread as I type this, so it would be inappropriate for me to not concede this, even though I don't currently recall stating that sentiment), or you've interpreted them wrong.  My point was that atheism doesn't have any automatic connection to a moral code.  One could be an atheist that has a very high sense of altruism.  Another person could use atheism as a justification for sociopathic hedonism where they don't care who they hurt, manipulate or, even kill, in the pursuit of their personal sense of pleasure.  If a Christian were to do that (and many have!), they are at least a hypocrite.  Would the behaviour of the atheist who doesn't give a rodent's posterior about anyone but themselves conflict with atheism?  Certainly, they would be in conflict with altruism, but their behaviour would be completely consistent with atheism alone.  It's great when atheism and altruism go together, but history has shown that they don't always do that.  They're not automatically linked.  That's what I've been trying to explain, and that's what you've inaccurately taken for an accusation that "atheists don't have morals."  What I was trying to point out was that atheists aren't specifically required by the tenet(s) of atheism alone, to have morals.  I fail to see how that can even be debated.

And for the record, I don't need to "re-brand" myself as a rationalist. I'm not an atheist and never was. You might want to check into what "rationalism" is, before you go suggesting people of trying to "re-brand" themselves as if there was ever something wrong with their brand in the first place.

Congratulations!  Good for you!  We should throw you a party!  I wasn't talking about you in the first place, but it's good to see your ego is healthy.  I was referring to Bill Mahr, who, in his monologue at the end of his movie "Religulous", with exceptional clarity, puts himself in the anti-theist camp, regardless of what label he prefers for himself.  He can use any label he likes for himself, but his views on religion are anti-theistic.  It's a matter of public record.

I happen to think that the Big Bang Theory and the Invisible Man in the Sky Theory are equally unlikely, and anybody that portrays them as fact or won't admit that they *could* be wrong equally stupid. Some of us aren't so arrogant that we think we have all the answers.

I happen to think the Big Bang Theory (the real science thing, not the TV show) doesn't really have any serious competition at the moment, so I'm at a loss as to how one comes up with the conclusion that it's unlikely.  But, I'm not a scientist, so there may be a new theory in the process of coming into acceptance that I'm not aware of yet.

Thinking that we don't have all the answers might not be as uncommon as you may think.  It's not that unusual.  What is terribly unusual, it seems, is the desire, and possibly skill required, to share, rather than impose, what answers we have with other people.  Instead, what is terribly common, is the desire to cram one's answers down other people's throats, and force them to come to the same conclusions as the one doing the forcing.  Sharing requires give and take, respect, the willingness to learn and the ability to admit that one might have come to the wrong conclusion previously.  And before you jump to yet another conclusion, I'm not saying you don't have that.  I'm saying it's just rare in the world at large (in my opinion, based on my personal experience, of course).  And this is precisely where the militant atheists curiously perfectly imitate the fundamentalism that they purport to despise so much.

But, to go back to the original issue of religious folks allegedly not trusting atheists, roughly on the same level as rapists, I think that a mountain is being made out of a mole-hill here.  It sounds a lot like a slow news day, and a reporter took a few sound bytes from an interview, and did their best to "s@x-it-up" and make it all controversial.  I can't remember the exact statistics at the moment, but the percentage of Canadians who bother to go to a Church, Temple or Synagogue of some sort on a regular basis is, IIRC, less than ten percent.  The "regular basis" thing is a key point.  The percentage of Canadians that identify themselves as atheists, or refuse any religious affiliation, is roughly the same, somewhere less than ten percent.  What that means is, roughly eighty percent of Canadians don't give a flying whirl about religion one way or the other, even if they're of the curious personal opinion that they belong to a particular faith group, in even if that claim is in stark contrast to their behaviour and attitudes.

Serious practitioners of religion (that's the "regular basis" thing I mentioned earlier) tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as people who don't believe, because even if one claims to believe, it's meaningless unless it's acted upon.  Militant atheists and anti-theists tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as believers, regardless of whether the claimed faith is actually acted on.

So this, what could probably be best described as "apatheistic", portion of the populace in the middle balloons up and makes the opposite seem so imposing and "scary" to the two ends of the spectrum.  So, some religious folks might think of atheists as untrustworthy, just as some atheists might thing of religious folks as gullible dupes.  Both generalizations are wrong, but possibly emotionally understandable, no?  Plus, what do you really care what opinion less than ten percent of the population has about you?  Keep doing business with the other ninety percent and have a great day.

I assume this bit of verbal irony is the hyperbole to which you refer?

Yes.  And I'll take the time now to offer an apology and retraction, should anyone else decide to be offended at it.  It was not my intend to offend, or paint any group with such a wide brush, just point out that alternate perspectives exist...  Such as why Galileo was jailed.  Obviously, the official record shows he was jailed for heresy.  But, if heliocentrism was heresy, why did Copernicus (who figured out heliocentrism first!) remain a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life?  If the Vatican was anti-science, why were they funding Galileo, and his work, in the first place?  And if heresy was the issue, why wasn't he tortured and executed for it, like the Cathars?  It seems to me, and a lot of others who try to put all the pieces together, that the heresy charge was a trumped up excuse to make the charge stick, somewhat along the lines of the "contrary to the good prejudice" stuff.  I may be wrong (!), but a simple straightforward heresy charge doesn't fit all the facts.  It seems to me that there were other factors in play here.

Mr Bobbitt, et al, you have my apologies for allowing this discussion to spiral.  I originally was trying to be helpful and postulate possible answers for ballz and his inquiry into why a certain level of mistrust may exist between two opposing groups.  At some points my emotions got the better of me, and it turned into a heated debate rather than a healthy discussion.  Once again, my apologies.

 

[jollyjacktar]

This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.

Bruce

Yes, please do. 

 

[PMedMoe]

Yes, please do.

:nod:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why was this thread ever allowed to stay in Canadian Politics?

We should have an area here entitled "pointless arguments we like to have about religion every three months or so (that ultimately solves nothing) ..."

Too wordy?

 

[Nforce2012]

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies.

Today I forced by my unit to attend A rememberance ceremony, at the ceremony it was heavily religious.
There was five prayers, three readings from bible, multiple God hymns, multiple speach discussing God. About an hour of religious ceremony followed by five minutes of actual remembering. At no Time was I told that this would be so religious and unable to leave. I was wondering if there was a place I could anonymously complain about being forced to attend a religious ceremony.  Id rather not complain in public or through my direct chain for fear of career sabotage or duties. Or with my name protected.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Had you never been to a Remembrance Day service before this? How could you possibly have no idea what constitutes a Remembrance Day service?

 

[PuckChaser]

Been to a mess dinner yet? You're really gonna be upset when they say grace before the food is served.

 

[Remius]

It isn't a religious ceremony.  It has religious overtones.  And you shouldn't be "forced".  You should do it as part of being in the CF.  Nobody forced you to do anything religious at the ceremony i can guarantee that.  Yes you had to listen to a bit of stuff based on religion.  Big deal, get over it.  Small sacrfice don't you think?  Or is that too much for you?  I bet if this ceremony wasn't on a weekend maybe you wouldn't be complaining.  How about on Monday?  Planning to go into work because you object?  I doubt it.

You are complaining about nothing.  Nobody violated your freedom of religion.  You just choose to feel that way.

 

[mariomike]

Today I forced by my unit to attend A rememberance ceremony, at the ceremony it was heavily religious.

Some discussion of that two years ago.

"Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25815/post-990519.html#msg990519

 

[Strike]

So, you haven't said what your complaint is really about. That the ceremony had religious overtones?  Muffin. Usss you belong to a religion that forbids recognizing certain holidays/observances (in which case you likely wouldn't be in the military) then you need to step back and be a bit more accepting of tradition, all tradition, even if you don't like it. It's not hurting you at all.

 

[garb811]

Since joining, I have been to more Church Parades, Padre Hours, Police Memorial Services, Mess Dinners, Change of Command Parades, Colour Consecrations, Ramp Ceremonies and Service Funerals than I can remember which had at least some amount of air time for a man or woman of the cloth. 

Ironically, it's not just the big bad military that has compelled me to go to something with religious overtones.  On the civilian side, I have been to funerals, marriages, baptisms and other occasions where god (or gods in one case) was invoked, sometimes when I least expected it.

I am a life long atheist.  I don't complain though as I know it is part of my societal and military obligations.  When the religious pieces start, I opt out by thinking of other things.

 

[cupper]

I would say that the next time you are "forced" to attend a "religious" Remembrance Day ceremony, and the prayers are said, and the hymns sung, you could use the time wisely.

Perhaps you could reflect upon how the sacrifice made by those being honoured on this day allows you to live in a country that would give you the right to bitch and complain about something so small and petty.

You know, Lest We Forget, and all that. :facepalm:

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You may have noticed the small table set for one that is off on its own - it is reserved to honour our fallen comrades in arms. This symbolizes that they are with us, here in spirit. We should never forget the brave men and women who answered our nation's call [to serve] and served the cause of freedom in a special way. We are ever mindful that the sweetness of enduring peace has always been tainted by the bitterness of personal sacrifice. We are compelled to never forget that while we enjoy our daily pleasures, there are others who have endured the agonies of pain, deprivation and death.

I would like to explain the meaning of the items on this special table.

The table is round - to show our everlasting concern for our fallen comrades.
The tablecloth is white - symbolizing the purity of their motives when answering the call to duty.
The single red rose, displayed in a vase, reminds us of the life of each of our fallen comrades, and the loved ones and friends of these comrades who keep the faith.
The vase is tied with a red ribbon, symbol of our continued determination to remember our fallen comrades.
A slice of lemon on the bread plate is to remind us of the bitter fate of those who will never return.
A pinch of salt symbolizes the tears endured by the families of those who have sacrificed all.
The Holy Book represents the strength gained through faith to sustain those lost from our country.
The glass is inverted, they cannot toast with us at this time.
The chair is empty because they are no longer with us.
Let us remember - and never forget their sacrifice.

May they and their families ever be watched over and protected."

Taken from: The Regimental Rogue,  The Senior Subaltern » Mess Dinners; Advice for Subaltern Organizers of » Annex C: Toast to Fallen Comrades

 

[Scott]

Dude's a troll, don't bother.