Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from jo Tuesday, January 15, 2002 - 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess in a way you’re right, I do want to do something and don’t really know what, yoga is something that I do for fitness reasons and the ‘tranquillity’ of it is a nice side affect, I have been out for about six years and am now quite comfortable with the belief system or ‘ethic mode of conduct’ that has developed, although I’ll admit it is slightly cynical and perhaps could not fall under any particular classification as someone once said, ‘as we approach the answer, the question begins to change.’ Which means the question ‘who am I’ could never be resolved. I really respect the Zen life style, as you said it is a very peaceful lifestyle. I kinda like martial arts as well, have done a bit of tai-chi and find kick boxing a good balance to yoga. I think my the way that I am feeling is that according to the current paradigm, we as people are incapable of developing anything new, according to McLuhen (a postmodern writer) we are ‘driving through a rear view mirror’, we are going forwards, but only using the road maps that have already been made, using thoughts that have previously been thought, new ideas and concepts are inconceivable because they have already been conceived. Think about it, think about anything, anything at all and then type that thought into a search engine there it is, not exactly in the same form but dig deeper and you are sure to find all forms of that thought. I will cease my incessant ramblings eventually, it’s just that sometimes this overwhelming sense of …something… takes over, the self-indulgence and irresponsibility of our parent’s generation has left the planet in a mess, since they have not planned for their future, they will expect us to take care of them, a lot of us have our own families to take care of, (I could go on here for a while, but I’ll save you all the agony), but at the same time some time the weariness of playing ‘doctor’ sets in. To get back to the original point, what would change if people really were who they said they were, how does it matter??? (reply to this comment)

from fsck Monday, January 14, 2002 - 15:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm supposing you've never seen a Buddhist monk lob a petrol bomb or crack other Buddhist skulls over temple finances or the next Dalai Lama candidate then? (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, January 14, 2002, 21:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, no, I haven't. Even though I live in a so-called Buddhist country, many people here are the same as Christians in the States, it's in name only and they don't necessarily have a religion they hold to. But in my opinion, Buddhism, Zen and those things are not necessarily a religion, but more a lifestyle, a way to live your life. I still believe in Jesus as my Savior, but don't know if I care too much for the Christian religion as I have seen it, or any religion for that matter.(reply to this comment)

From fsck Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 15:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah well, you missed out on some quality entertainment. Seriously though, you really must distinguish between the religion of God and man.(reply to this comment)

from porceleindoll Sunday, January 13, 2002 - 06:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Jo, I didn't quite get your post, but what I think you're saying is, you want to do something with yourself but can't figure out what it is? I have come to a point in my life where I'm deciding on my religion, or lifestyle, so to speak. It has been hard this far, and I have a very negative reaction to anything religious or groupish, I get the hives, chills, shakes and feel like running the other way. I am considering following the Zen lifestyle, perhaps. I need to study it more, but something that gives a more peaceful connecting with the world around you and the earth, helping you to develop your inner strength. I don't think that's an answer for you, but it's what I've been doing. Yoga has helped me a lot, I live in a Buddhist country, I see that they are much more peaceful than many westerners. I am not "trying" so hard to get things accomplished, but I try to take each day as it comes. It has helped me deal with the deeper questions of life for which I don't have answers. (reply to this comment)

From placebo Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I think Anthony covered up the definiton of religion pretty well. As far as Bhuddism seeming to be the lesser of the evils, it might have something to do with the fact that Bhuddism wasn't intended to be a religion.(reply to this comment)

From placebo Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 11:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Dang that comment ended up in the wrong place.Anthony's definition of religion was somewhere else. What I was trying to say here is that both Bhuddism and Confucianism got most of their ideas for Taoism so maybe you want to look into that (reply to this comment)

From placebo Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) *from Taoism(reply to this comment)

From Crista Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Good luck on your sarch for religion. I would suggest when you find a religion, that you not join a goup. What I mean is, adapt the characteristics you like, but don't join with a group of other people. I went on the same search a few years ago. I finally decided that Christianity was for me. If you read the Bible and really try to understand the way it says to be, it is far different from anyone I've met in churches or groups. So I just live the lifestyle and believe as a Christian. It fits me well and comes easy to me. I have lots of flaws, but I have a lot of patience, a lot of love, a lot of forgiveness, I don't judge other people much and easily give what I have to others. So, being a Christian suits me and makes my life better. Best wishes in findng your way of life.(reply to this comment)

From nameless Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 09:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Why is it so important to "have a religion"? I don't understand why you would place importance or even stress yourself because you feel you are at a point in life where you need to "find your religion or way of life". Don't know about you but I'm quite happy to not have a concious at the moment, to be morally irresponsible and not give a toss about what religion is true or what I believe is right. I think all of us have pretty good morals deep, deep down, so I don't think I'd ever become a serial killer or mass terrorist, but as far as my responsibility to humanity or morality.... well you can kiss my ass!!(reply to this comment)

From nameless Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 09:21 (Agree/Disagree?) or should my name really be "FAITHLESS"!!(reply to this comment)

From Crista Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 22:20 (Agree/Disagree?) No, not faithless, since you obviously have some faith in mankind. Religion is not important to everyone and it hasn't always been at the top of my priorities either and I haven't really stressed about it, I just went on my own investigation for the truth or some meaning to this mundane and sometimes depressing thing called life. There are many things that people use as a way to vent, release or escape from reality from time to time in order to deal with all the stress and uncertainty of life. Some people choose to use drugs, alcohol, sex and even religion. I personally have had very bad experiences with people I care about using drugs and I am turned off to them completely, I do drink alcohol but hate being drunk and haven't done that in years, I'm married (enough said about sex), and so (though I personally believe in God and find comfort in Him) Christianity helps me look beyond the troubles that surround me on a daily basis. I don't know if that makes sense to you at all, but that is just one of many reasons for me. If you're completely happy, than you've reached the goal of life and good for you!(reply to this comment)

From Crista Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 22:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Also, I have had people that I love die over the past few years and it comforts me to know that they are in Heaven and I will see them again. And if I believe Heaven is real, than I believe hell is real as well, and I sure as hell don't want to end up there.(reply to this comment)

From jr308 Friday, January 18, 2002, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) There is no heaven or hell there is just the now, and for some it is there "hell". More pain and suffering has been caused in "Gods" name then greed or power. It all comes down to control, whether it is conforming to a set belife system, having the control over others to do there bidding or the seduction of money (now dont get me wrong money is important). Whether it 20 followers or a million it all comes down to the control. (reply to this comment)

From jr308 Friday, January 18, 2002, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) The above comment was written when I was pretty smashed. So when it dosent make sence to you(when I read it this morning it didnt make sence to me) just remember that the rambalings of a drunk fool dont matter much.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Friday, January 18, 2002, 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) But I understood what you were saying. I've often thought about that myself, that so many of the world's troubles have happened in the name of religion, from the beginning of history to now. In the song "Imagine" John Lennon says to Imagine there's no heaven, hell, no wars between us And live for today Berg taught us that Lennon had lead a whole generation astray with that song, but if you think deeper about it you realise that: If people could put aside their concepts of heaven, hell, religion, then they could really live in peace. When we were in the group we were always striving for our time in heaven, trying to be better here on earth so we could get rewards in heaven. I wasted 20 years of living my life right now for a future I'm not really 100% certain about. I personally would rather not be leading and ruling and reining in Heaven, I would rather have a little house and garden and time to enjoy it all. So, I agree with living for today, living in the moment, it's what I one day hope to do, just live the right now.(reply to this comment)

From fsck Saturday, January 19, 2002, 13:32 (Agree/Disagree?) It's almost hard to believe that people still fall for this bullshit. Are you really so gullible as to believe that all (or even a sizeable proportion) of strife throughout history is based upon religion? While I'm here, the Beatles suck!(reply to this comment)

From ladybird Thursday, January 24, 2002, 09:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Imagine, in my humble opinion, is one of the best songs of all time ever written!! So please don't say the Beattles sucked cause I'll go on to name good song after good song (Hey Jude, Let it Be, Hard days night, to name a few..) (reply to this comment)

From fsck Thursday, January 24, 2002, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) No, they all suck too.(reply to this comment)

From Lance Friday, January 25, 2002, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Wasn't Imagine written by Yoko ono? (reply to this comment)

From fsck Friday, January 25, 2002, 14:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Dunno, but John Lennon is still an asshole.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Saturday, January 19, 2002, 19:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that smart rulers know how to control the masses through religion. Religion has had a strong hold over people's souls, minds and hearts, stronger than government in a way. So when you mix religion with a greedy person who has a personal agenda of taking over and control, you get a powerful combination, evil authority. I don't know if all strife through history is based on religion, but there are large time periods when a lot of wars, massacres, etc, were done in the name of religion. The leaders no doubt had greed for their motive, but to come out and say "I'm fighting this war for greed" doesn't always go over, but using religion "We have to wipe out the Muslims, the Witches, the Christians, they're a menace to society, they're stealing your kids, they're taking your money, come, fight with us in this crusade!!" then people will fall for it. By the way, I'm not a Beatles fan myself, but I like a lot of John Lennon's stuff.(reply to this comment)

From fsck Sunday, January 20, 2002, 15:01 (Agree/Disagree?) You're digging deeper into your hole...to what cause something is ascribed is very different to its cause. If you want to talk numbers then what about the avowedly non-religious despots of the 20th century? Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and others are directly responsible for more deaths in a period of less than 100 years than I believe could ever be seriously and solely blamed on all religions put together in the previous 2000 years. John Lennon was an asshole. Anybody who wears glasses like that, sits in bed for year and writes such pompous shite could only be an asshole.(reply to this comment)

From K Tuesday, February 04, 2003, 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Don'tyou don't get it? They couldn't have done what they did without religion in the first place[TF?] Religion and power has been changing and evolving to keep up with the decreasing numbers of ignorant populations;hence so many offshoots in beilefs over the centuries.The Media has helped highlight this "Flaw" and the powerfull are now using this again as we can see that they own newspapers and T.V stations{Rupert Murdoch} to "edit" the news and programs....Divide and rule is the only way they can maintain this without becoming openly Dictorial.I see this happening right now,with the Christian world vs muslim.Natural loyalties are hard to replace I.e someone calling themselves a catholic when they are more likly to be a pot-smoking,condom-using fornicater supporting Greenpiece,interrested in Budda.America are being found out every day.Terrorism?who sold the guns and weapons?A suicide bomber is just as sincier in their belief {virgins in heaven? sex?mmmmm I've heard that before.]Religion should be banned from politics now!sound crazy?The point is the ones who use it for power are the ones who don't really believe it anyway.Who's destroying the earth?Bush wouldn't sign the International treaty to limit the damage we create.The religous are not interrested in putting in the time and effort and we who know what alot of old Bollocks it is, are extemly fustrated at this concept as we only have one planet and one life each;so get used to it![I suggest putting the feuding lot;and their weapons in a rocket,shooting them off in space and if they decide to really finish it all off, let'em, at least some of us will be survive LOL] (reply to this comment)

From K Tuesday, February 04, 2003, 08:15 (Agree/Disagree?) John Lennon is an inspiration to many free thinkers today.He was an individual who used his gifts for good.The White album is a classic.(reply to this comment)

From jr308 Sunday, January 20, 2002, 18:42 (Agree/Disagree?) In response to your arguments. religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers. An orderly life so far as others are able to observe us is now and then produced by prudential motives or by dint of habit; but without seriousness there can be no religious principle at the bottom, no course of conduct from religious motives; in a word, there can be no religion. --Paley. Religion [was] not, as too often now, used as equivalent for godliness; but . . . it expressed the outer form and embodiment which the inward spirit of a true or a false devotion assumed. --Trench. Religions, by which are meant the modes of divine worship proper to different tribes, nations, or communities, and based on the belief held in common by the members of them severally. . . . There is no living religion without something like a doctrine. On the other hand, a doctrine, however elaborate, does not constitute a religion. --C. P. Tiele (Encyc. Brit.). Religion . . . means the conscious relation between man and God, and the expression of that relation in human conduct. --J. K["o]stlin (Schaff-Herzog Encyc.) After the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. --Acts xxvi. 5. The image of a brute, adorned With gay religions full of pomp and gold. --Milton. 2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. --Washington. Religion will attend you . . . as a pleasant and useful companion in every proper place, and every temperate occupation of life. --Buckminster. 3. (R. C. Ch.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion. --Trench. A good man was there of religion. --Chaucer. 4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct. [R.] Those parts of pleading which in ancient times might perhaps be material, but at this time are become only mere styles and forms, are still continued with much religion. --Sir M. Hale. Note: Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual presence. Natural religion, a religion based upon the evidences of a God and his qualities, which is supplied by natural phenomena. See Natural theology, under Natural. Religion of humanity, a name sometimes given to a religion founded upon positivism as a philosophical basis. Revealed religion, that which is based upon direct communication of God's will to mankind; especially, the Christian religion, based on the revelations recorded in the Old and New Testaments. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Now if you look at the definition (4) and combine that with the beliefs systems of Maoisim - Markisiam - Stalinism, then you would have to agree that it is a religion. Not one of the "acceptable religion" but one never the less. Below are some brief synopses of how these religions have shaped and influenced the out come of their prospective believers. STALIN During his life as leader of the Soviet Union, his influence upon his world and the world at large was formidable. In addition to his still-critical influence on the world's largest country, he extended Stalinism to the countries of Eastern Europe, where his influence and methods were practiced right up until 1989. The Chinese and Mao patterned a great deal of their post-1949 society after the system he built. Even today, North Korea for example, still practices Stalinism, and Saddam Hussein uses many of Stalin's tactics in ruling Iraq. POL-POT There is nothing unique about government-sponsored violence. There is, in fact, nothing especially unusual about widespread killing, or even genocide. The rallying cry heard in the wake of World War II -- "Never again!" -- is a noble sentiment, and not a reflection of reality. Ask the Indonesians, or the Timorese, or the Palestinians, or the Salvadorans, or the Rwandans, or the Albanians... or the Cambodians. What made the Cambodian revolution unique was not merely that the Khmer Rouge was brutal. The Cambodia revolution stands apart from other upheavals because the Khmer Rouge combined astonishing brutality with astonishing stupidity. For the most part, dictatorial regimes in other nations have moderated their policies for the simple reason that most understand that there are limits to human endurance. When conditions reach a certain level of severity, societies cease to function. There is a limit to how many "enemies" one can kill before the entire population begins to understand that everyone is at risk. Fear becomes palpable, and paralyzing. Moreover, the human infrastructure needed to enact change is decimated twice: first by the loss of life, then by the destruction of the spirit. The Khmer Rouge created a government founded on doctrinaire delusions. They did not adapt their ideas to fit with the realities of their nation; instead, with the religious fervor of True Believers, they blinded themselves and silenced those who dared to speak out. The Khmer Rouge constantly stressed that "Angka" ("The Organization") was infallible. Consequently, suggestions for improving policies or work methods were seen as nothing more than veiled criticisms of the regime. Their constant search for "enemies" became a self-fulfilling prophecy: those who were not opposed to the regime in the beginning were by the end. So it would seem to me that the whole basis of this regime was on the doctrinal beliefs of Maoisim, now to say that this is not a religion is very short sided. (reply to this comment)

From fsck Monday, January 21, 2002, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) It had to happen sooner or later, a cut-and-paste fetishist, if not a plaigarist. Doing a hasty search online for extracts of your post reveals the following URLs (I haven't looked for anymore), where you can read the (possibly) original versions in all their glory: Regarding Stalin: http://library.thinkquest.org/17120/data/bios/users/stalin/page_1.html?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0121 Regarding Pol-Pot: http://members.aol.com/cambodia/uniq_rev.htm Now to the "argument", obscured by the cut-and-paste orgy: to seriously liken these despots to a religion is stretching a point. There was undoubtedly a strong personality cult and the associated legend around some or all, but that surely doesn't equate to a religion in any theological sense.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, January 22, 2002, 19:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps a better word to describe this issue is fanaticism. Whether it leads to killer kool-aid and Nikes, or flying into the twin towers, unquestioning acceptance of a belief system is one of the most dangerous things there is. The reality is that there are no explanatory theories for consciousness, or why it is that we are here, or what happens after death, or what the perfect society is. No one can prove these things beyond all doubt. Faith by definition (and I know you disagree with this fsck) is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Miriam-Webster). As such, trying to ram a belief down someone else throat, or condemning those who don't share this belief to death or hellfire is ridiculous. The common thread among all of these tyrants is that they demanded unquestioning faith in an ideology (which they happened to personify). If there's one thing we are all experts on, it's what a dangerous idea that is.(reply to this comment)

From K Saturday, February 08, 2003, 14:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Thats it, if some nutter wants to live in a hole worshipping an orange;good luck to him but when he starts demanding/forcing his fellow beings to do the same, worse still having to shag the thing well..........nuff said.(reply to this comment)

From fsck Wednesday, January 23, 2002, 14:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course the ramming of ideas down throats is ridiculous. Condemning unbelievers to death is a somewhat different issue (you might say society condemns murderers to death for not agreeing with the definition of murder), while damning them to enternal hellfire is entirely out of human control and thus a moot point. Please let's put away the tired spectre of "fanaticism"...it's such a tedious, overused villian, it's beginning to lose its teeth. Tyrants don't necessarily give a flying fuck about belief in the ideal. After all, many of those imprisoned in the gulags were - and remained, sadly enough - geniune and committed believers in the leadership of Stalin and the communist ideal. The longest (?) lasting fascist dictatorship (although I don't think it can truly be called despotic), that of Franco, wasn't exactly rooted in idealogical conditioning. I remember reading an article in which the author recalls a visit to Spain during Franco's rule, in which he describes entering an ordinary bookshop and seeing works by Marx/Engels/Lenin etc. freely available. Curiously, this is contrast to many modern European states in which "Mein Kampf" is banned outright. As far as David Berg and The Family are concerned, I don't believe there was or is any real idealogy, let alone religion. Is there any single document - or group of documents - that describes the beliefs of The Family (no, not the statements, they were just a PR/marketing exercise)? Certainly not the Bible...(reply to this comment)

From VWBabe Thursday, February 07, 2002, 15:41 (Agree/Disagree?) You are correct, the Family did not have any particular religion as such. It would take much more that one document to explain the religious beliefs that the Family embraced. I've really found it easier to throw out "the baby with the bathwater" where religion is concerned. It really has no impact on my life right now and I prefer not to dwell on it.(reply to this comment)

from Holon Saturday, January 12, 2002 - 11:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow! You are so deep. Very good. (reply to this comment)