Ben Franklin on Religion (priest, marriages, perspective, philosophy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm still waiting for you to provide me with some examples of where you held religious organizations (like churches, denominations, temples, etc.) responsible for something negative. Several of us would like to see the balance.
Also interesting to me is the motivation to provide example(s) of a positive view of religion. Though sometimes I have to wonder about people who don't seem as aware of the negatives as they should be, if at all, I also wonder if there is anyone who is really not aware of the positives. Pretty strong balance of both far as I know, which begs the question; why does anyone choose to promote either the positives or the negatives exclusively?
To me....and I am not the sharpest tool in the shed....Ben Franklin on religion inherently recognizes the negatives of people's use of religion.
The primary reason to hold his position that doctrinal differences do not matter so long as they are doing good deeds among humans....is the direct cause of different denominations and/or religions attacking one another over what is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Those attacks reduce liberty/freewill.
But notice that I said "people's use of religion." I recently heard someone say that 'all religions are hierarchical.' That is not my experience. Who is the head of the Society of Friends? Who was the top person at my meeting house? It was pretty close to pure democracy in my mind there. But I don't know.
But notice that I said "people's use of religion." I recently heard someone say that 'all religions are hierarchical.' That is not my experience. Who is the head of the Society of Friends? Who was the top person at my meeting house? It was pretty close to pure democracy in my mind there. But I don't know.
In and out of religion, attempts at shallow or non-existent hierarchies have been made with varying levels of success. In business this would be some theoretical equality between all employees, with everyone having a say. Problem is not everyone cares to have a say or wants the burdens of leadership, and the founder(s) of an organization understandably want to preserve their founding vision, otherwise what was the point of starting the whole thing? So often we see an organization started with high principles and then drawing back from them. Google's "don't be evil" principle is widely considered to be risible now, for example. Today they are just one more Giant International MegaCorp with the primary goal of profits and market dominance and their shareholders are catered to at the expense of employees, vendors, even customers.
Similarly I would expect any religious org wanting to be non-hierarchical would have to accept certain limits on growth. I don't know how you govern an organization even indirectly beyond a certain size, without some sort of hierarchy. The Unitarian / Universalists I understand are starting to run into this problem. Their non-hierarchical ethos is more around being non-creedal and having no fixed theology and having local congregations be as self-governing as possible but they are finding themselves spinning their wheels around this because there's not much of a core to bind the members together in common cause. So they are starting to head back in the other direction now, even if they end up losing some of their constituencies. Or at least there's a contingent that wants to go down that road.
People who act badly deserve negative attributes. If an institution exists to promote bad actions, such as Racism, Colonization, Nazism, Slavery, the Mafia, of course they all deserve to be viewed negatively, as inherently bad.
Religion exists to do good, just as other institutions do such as Educational, Charitable or for the Arts. These exist because people want them, they add meaning and beauty to life. They cannot exist without people. If those people misuse the institution, act badly, it is not the institution that is negative. It is always the people.
Unless … you hate Education, hate the Arts, hate Religion, hate the poor. Then of course you will see them all inherently bad and negatively. Not only the institutions but the educators, the students, the artists, the poor, and those who practice religion as well. Hate them all. Many people do.
Thank you. I appreciate your elaboration about all this, but I must say I'm not able to follow along with your line of reasoning beginning with your assumption that "religion exists to do good." I am okay with education and what I think we both see as it's purpose. The arts as well, but religion is nothing like education or the arts when it comes to purpose and effect.
One might argue there is also the "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to education and the arts, but I surely don't have the same perspective or feelings about education and the arts like I do about religion. About all three, I don't separate the people from the institutions like you do either. All are nothing without the people who make education, the arts and religion what they are.
I could go on, but for what purpose? I'm not really sure, but obviously we have different views about religion more generally speaking, and I for one have no problem addressing the good and/or bad about religion. Religion and those who follow the religion. Those who make religion what it is, for themselves and for others.
To me....and I am not the sharpest tool in the shed....Ben Franklin on religion inherently recognizes the negatives of people's use of religion.
The primary reason to hold his position that doctrinal differences do not matter so long as they are doing good deeds among humans....is the direct cause of different denominations and/or religions attacking one another over what is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Those attacks reduce liberty/freewill.
But notice that I said "people's use of religion." I recently heard someone say that 'all religions are hierarchical.' That is not my experience. Who is the head of the Society of Friends? Who was the top person at my meeting house? It was pretty close to pure democracy in my mind there. But I don't know.
I think my perspective about religion might be a little broader than you describe...
Religious people might feel they're doing nothing but good by following their religion, but take the typical view by religious people about gays, for example. The typical intolerance or "demonization" of people who are gay is the sort of bad I see coming from religion that religious people see quite differently. Wrongly far as I am concerned.
There's the rub. There's the sort of bad I see coming from many a religion and/or religious person that should be called out as bad far as I'm concerned. Fortunately, this is being done more and more as people in advanced countries make the progress we should along these lines. Despite religious doctrine.
Thank you. I appreciate your elaboration about all this, but I must say I'm not able to follow along with your line of reasoning beginning with your assumption that "religion exists to do good." I am okay with education and what I think we both see as it's purpose. The arts as well, but religion is nothing like education or the arts when it comes to purpose and effect.
One might argue there is also the "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to education and the arts, but I surely don't have the same perspective or feelings about education and the arts like I do about religion. About all three, I don't separate the people from the institutions like you do either. All are nothing without the people who make education, the arts and religion what they are.
I could go on, but for what purpose? I'm not really sure, but obviously we have different views about religion more generally speaking, and I for one have no problem addressing the good and/or bad about religion. Religion and those who follow the religion. Those who make religion what it is, for themselves and for others.
Your distaste for and disputation about SOME of the specific beliefs within religion are what seem to prejudice you against the entire enterprise of religion. But CB is correct, the actual purpose of religion is to foster the good in humanity. It is misguided and often absurd beliefs about what the good entails that you dispute, LearnMe. It is unavoidable with all human institutions whatever their avowed purpose might be. But that the avowed purpose of religion is to foster good is indisputable, IMO.
Thank you. I appreciate your elaboration about all this, but I must say I'm not able to follow along with your line of reasoning beginning with your assumption that "religion exists to do good." I am okay with education and what I think we both see as it's purpose. The arts as well, but religion is nothing like education or the arts when it comes to purpose and effect.
One might argue there is also the "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to education and the arts, but I surely don't have the same perspective or feelings about education and the arts like I do about religion. About all three, I don't separate the people from the institutions like you do either. All are nothing without the people who make education, the arts and religion what they are.
I could go on, but for what purpose? I'm not really sure, but obviously we have different views about religion more generally speaking, and I for one have no problem addressing the good and/or bad about religion. Religion and those who follow the religion. Those who make religion what it is, for themselves and for others.
If you are unable to see that religion exists for the good then of course no understanding can be found. There will be no purpose. If you are unable to separate people and their acts from the institutions, then i can only imagine you will insist the whole system of education is corrupt because some members of the faculty assaulted the students.
If you are unable to see that religion exists for the good then of course no understanding can be found. There will be no purpose. If you are unable to separate people and their acts from the institutions, then i can only imagine you will insist the whole system of education is corrupt because some members of the faculty assaulted the students.
1. Religion may exist for that reason, but that is not the important question. The important question is did it succeed in that. Answer = very mixed results.
2. The question is...did the educational institution lead people to commit certain acts.
3. If we are talking about religion...and after all, this is in the religion and spirituality section of the forum, then why not use as an example of the corruptness of priests in a religious organization assaulting students?
4. The forum has a section dedicated to education. Discussing educational institutions is appropriate there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
