Everyone who argues for or against religion does so for a very simple reason. Among all the claims of knowledge that exist, from the oldest to the newest, from any corner of the monotheistic milieu, religion remains unable to offer any evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of their claims. That fact is plastered over by layer upon layer of tradition and the 'theological' foundations of tradition are like the proverbial saying: give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves." Thus in the absence of a sure intellectual grounding, do serious thinking men and women keep religion at arms length.
But there is a confusion which secularists dishonestly use. That is knowing religion to be a fraud, presume that the idea of God must also be false, which is an error of logic. To deny religion is not to deny God....only religion. Then the problem becomes one of how does history rid itself of not only a false faith, but the many institutions that maintain it, and provide licence to any number of infamies?
As used in the secular scientific method, I would suggest that the only way to expose what is false is to discover something which is testably true. And that may already have happened, if material on the web is authenticated, posing a very real threat to the current religious/faith paradigm. But resolving the great religious question may make both 'religious' and 'atheist' redundant ideas. http://www.energon.org.uk
| The Importance of Religion in American Politics |
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 04 June 2008 11:22 | |
|
Over the past few months when we talked about the Democratic presidential candidate race we heard endlessly about race and sex. I'm not here to argue that race and sex don't play a role in our society or that people aren't suffering because of them. No, I rather would like to tell you about the facet of America everyone seems to ignore, religion. 
Take for example the common e-mail circulating that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why is this important, really think about it. What exactly about being a Muslim would make him a bad president? It boils down to two things, first that he is "different" from a majority of Americans in their choice on religion (forgetting of course that Christianity and Islam are more similar than dissimilar). Second, and most importantly there is the war (or better said occupation) of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Just like people say that because you're a female or you're black you can't run this country, we are saying the same thing, because you're Muslim you can't run this country. "They" believe that being a Muslim makes one a terrorists, much like being a woman makes one soft. What this really boils down to is that the war on terror is really a religious conflict. Think about it, we were attacked by Osama bin Laden because we weren't converting to his religion. We don't want someone who is a Muslim to be our leader because that would instantly mean he is a terrorist. However if this same man isn't Muslim and is Christian, well then he is alright. How about John McCain seeking the support of Christian pastor's whom believe that we should kill all Muslims? There is no uproar that a man who may be our next president is looking to be supporter by a man who believes this. It barely gets any attention at all. Why do you think that is? Simple, because we are Christian and the "terrorists" are Muslims so we'd all be better off if there were no Muslims and were all Christian. 
Comments (4)
Joomla components by Compojoom
|
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, 19 December 2008 18:12 ) |
Join Us!
|
Joining Reform America is fast, free, and easy. At Reform America you can:
- Create a blog - Participate in a forum - Create and join groups - and much more! To sign up just click here. |
