[thechat] Religious dependance

Tara Cleveland tara at taracleveland.com
Fri Jan 17 14:40:01 CST 2003


Joe Crawford wrote:

> Uh, I got the impression that was *precisely* the kind of claims Madhu
> made, and that I read in athiest writings -- e.g.: my lack of religion
> makes me better capable to see the world as it really is, and avoid the
> strife and unhappiness religion brings.

Yes, but that's him as an *individual* writing about himself. It's not a
system of beliefs - it's *his* beliefs - therefore you can't compare him to
Stalin, because the the only thing that is the same (as far as I know ;-) )
is that they both do not believe in God. Who knows if Stalin said that his
lack of religion made him better capable to see the world as it really is,
and avoid the strife and unhappiness religion brings.

>> People who claim they are religious, and whose religion requires them to
>> behave ethically, morally and tolerantly, and then don't behave that way
>> are hypocrites. People who claim they don't believe in God, but behave
>> immorally aren't hypocrites (well at least not in that regard) because
>> they never said they would behave morally.
>
> Religions make few *requirements* as I have seen them, most of them that I
> have experience with express *guidelines*.

Tomayto, tomahto... That's basically what I meant. :-)

Although God saying "Thou shalt not kill" sounds an awful lot more like a
*requirement* than a *guideline* to me - using the definition of requirement
as "an imperative or authoritative command" (dictionary.com).

I guess I also have the feeling that if you claim to be a "religious"
person, in order to truly be of that religion, you shouldn't regularly and
consciously contravene those guidelines, otherwise I don't really see how
you can call yourself religious. In that sense it's a requirement. This is
coming from my personal experiences with some people who considered
themselves religious, looked down on others who weren't, and then behaved in
a way that totally contravened all of the guidelines of their religion. It
made me discount their claims of being religious. So in my opinion, in order
to be truly religious you are required to behave in a certain way, at least
most of the time (people are human after all we can't all be Mother Teresa).

> And more, I have a real problem with this label of "hipocrite" - it
> carries with it a kind of moral judgement of the whole of a person's
> charater that I dislike. I think it's more apt to talk of individual acts
> of hipocrisy. In the end, I have not met anyone who is not in some sense
> a hipocrite: we say we want to cut down on sweets, but we eat cake; we
> decry the influence of oil in the world yet drive cars; any adult person
> is a hipocrite. In this sense, I find the accusation of hipocrisy a weak
> kind of attack.

Hey, you were the one who started the talk of hypocrisy... ;-) I agree with
you. I think we are all hypocrites. I don't think of it as being a judge of
a person's overall character, unless they base their entire system of
beliefs on whatever it is they are being hypocritical about. So, just for
example, if you say you are an upstanding Catholic, but you have an affair,
lie about it to your family and friends, get an abortion - because the
condom broke (upon which you commented, "Jesus Christ, not again!") - I'd
say you are a hypocrite. You are being hypocritical at the level of your
basic belief system. If you were a health guru and your life and sense of
place in the world revolved around leading a healthy lifestyle and you ate
cake for breakfast every day, I'd say you were a hypocrite too.  But that
doesn't mean I necessarily think you are a "bad" person. It is a judgement
upon a person's character but I don't think it's entirely damning, because I
agree that we're all hypocritical - to one extent or another - every day.

>> Now if you were comparing communism (Stalin) and Christianity (Bush) as
>> belief systems, you might have an argument... ;-)
>
> Ah. So the movement is the practicer? Nice move.

Not sure exactly what you mean... but *I* meant that since you had compared
the hipocrisy in Stalin's atheism with Bush's Christianity, a better
comparison would be Stalin's communism and Bush's Christianity since they
are both systems of belief.

Regards,
Tara





More information about the thechat mailing list