Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: volrammos ( )
Date: June 19, 2013 11:46PM

Even if we have had basic rights - freedom of speech and thought - written down in law for about 200 years?

Why do I sense that these rights have a hard time even existing?

Is it because of a cultural habit to solve problems through tradition instead of the use of reason?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rt ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 12:15AM

Judging by your reference to the 200 years, I think you mean American culture. Then I don't know.

If you include non-US countries in the definition of "western culture", then your premise is false. There is no "religious mentality" to speak of in the non-US western world.

I do agree that what you call basic rights have a hard time existing. The kind of freedom I enjoy here in Europe is quite unique in human history and probably untenable in the long run.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: volrammos ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 12:32AM

The religious mentality in Europe are much older. You got holy monarchies alongside progressive politics, for me that is stealing peoples reason. Always of great importance if you want to knit society together. Here in Sweden the king or the future queen of Sweden are forced by law to be a lutheran, and at the same time ordinary people have religious freedom. In eastern europe gay-bashing is very common, in Progressive france there have been heavy protests against gay-marriage, nationalism is on the rise and parties wants to kick muslims out of Europe. So religious attitudes still is a part of Europe. And basic rights got less status than ever.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ozpoof ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 03:32AM

Italy is secular. They tolerate the Vatican because it brings in the $$$. France is secular. Scandinavia can almost be called atheist.

Most places tolerate a degree of religious pomp as tradition, kind of like the British tolerate the Royals as long as they boost tourism.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 04:13AM

Italy is fairly religious.I have attended mass in several of their cathedrals and they have been pretty full- even the no frills services at odd hours.According to Wiki, almost forty percent are practicing Catholic and seventy four percent believe in God



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 04:16AM by bona dea.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 12:36AM

How do you know that those French protesters are religious?Some of the most homophobic people I know are not religious at all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: earlyrm ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 12:59AM

I have never visited Europe, but due to people using religion (ie the Church of England) as a claim to monarchal power, the founding fathers of the USA were determined to have a "separation of church and state". However, the history of people coming to America to avoid religious persecution called for laws to protect the freedom to practice any religion. The protecting laws provided a perfect way for new religions (far too many being cults) to spring up, without having the legal right to eliminate each other like they could in Europe by crusades, combining with government to outlaw other religions, etc. We have more grass growing, but nobody is mowing the lawn!

I think that the reason religious mentality is so pervasive in the US is because it is a part of pride, and a part of social atmosphere. Many people are proud that the USA provides this "right to religion". True USA nationalists are almost ALWAYS deeply religious and love their guns. It's all about exercising the rights that other countries don't provide.

The reason people are willing to be so religious in the first place is because the society is so full of religiosity. It seems normal to be religious. Religion gives people something to direct their lives, when they're too ignorant to set their own rules for morality, etc. It gives them an instant community to rely upon. It is an attractive deal for most people. They look for emotional fulfillment, instead of the truth.

...Red pill, blue pill, one pill, two pill....

The majority of US citizens have personalities that are warm and emotional, rather than cold and logical. Warm and emotional personalities are far more susceptible to the draw of religion, due to its promise of emotional fulfillment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brefots ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 02:00AM

Read some history, religious mentality is the norm in all societies. The last 60 years or so of near indifference to religion compared to earlier times in western europe is the real puzzle, not why there is a legacy from many centuries of piety still lingering on.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smorg ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 02:12AM

Eastern cultures also have their own religious mentality, actually. It's just that their religions are very different from the monotheistic Western ones... though they are every bit (if not more) superstitious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ozpoof ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 03:29AM

I think most Western Nations are secular except the USA. I can't believe how pervasive religion is in US life. I'm constantly amazed at how political leaders attribute so much to God and always seem to mention prayer, God or some sh!t.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, most of Europe except maybe Albania or Portugal are very secular. There really is not religious mentality anywhere here in Australia unless you go looking for it. No public prayers, no thanking God, nothing.

The US has about 60 years to progress before it reaches the rest of Western society as far as religion being part of public life.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Inspired Stupidity ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 05:46AM

Virtually all societies are religious because almost all humans are religiously inclined. Why? Probably a combination of two things. First inherited fear of dangers that are not understood, the way that a rat or a mouse will panic when a shadow crosses overhead. The self-preservation response has been genetically incoded and does not differentiate between a swooping hawk and a pidgeon or pheasant. Humans have the same fear of fires and snakes and spiders; these are short-circuits that make it easier for us to avoid dangers even when we know those dangers are minimal or nonexistent. Second, the limitations of human intellect in the face of complex nature and the demands of human emotion. Put simply, people accept large parts of life on the basis of faith beause that faith answers lots of big questions that people don't want to waste time thinking about.

Nietzsche got this right. In the late 19th century he saw that Christianity had lost any real claim to the European heart and would soon die just as--in his words--the Christian "God is dead." Did he mean that a living God had actually died? No. That Christianity was dead? No, just that it was weak and its God no longer wielded enough power over people's hearts to get them to do what he (or his prophets) wanted. But Nietzsche never said that RELIGION is dead or would die. To the contrary, he wrote that the old God would be replaced by new gods that were arising contemporaneously in Germany and Russia. Which leads to a profound point, Marxism, Nazism, and many other supposedly secular ideologies are actually religions--systems of thought based largely on faith. Nietzsche would say that when people lose faith in their tradotopma; religion, they either 1) redefine social custom and political views to form an ideology that functions the same way as a religion, or 2) in danger of being quickly converted to a new religion.

So how did this play out in the 20th century? World War One did great damage to Christianity in Europe, which was largely displaced by totalitarianism in most countries, nihilism in some countries, etc. This followed Nietzsche's prediction. The Second World war destroyed those ideologies but also ruined the residual Christianities, whose decline has continued ever since. That is why Europe is largely irreligious: none of the Gods had to power to prevent multiple rounds of devestation. God proved that he did not exist or that he did not give a damn about his believers.

Something similar occcurred in Asia. In Japan the two world wars and the depression discredited all the buddhist and shinto religions, leaving only a faith in the state that has eroded deeply. China is even more extreme. There were folk religions before the instability of the 1920s adn 1930s, but these were discredited by the War of Resistance against Japan. The Communists imposed their own religion quite effectively after comming to power in 1949, but then came the Great Leap Forward adn the Cultural Revolution, which undermined faith in communism and the state. The coup de grace came in 1989, when Deng Xiaoping rejected Communist economics and told people that "to get rich is glorious." Since then the vestiges of the old religions, ideologies, and value systems have foundered dramatically; adn all that is left is a society that wants money and power and feels few emotional or moral constraints. NOt healthy.

Islam's a little different because it emerged from the two great wars in a stronger position, with more international respect and more national power. Then came the oil money, which gave them a faith that Allah treasured them. Ill-advised intervention from the US in AFghanistan and elsewhere ahs also given Moslems a chance to throw out infidel westerners, confirming that God blesses them, their lands, and their jihads. I'd guess that a lot of Moslems are now more confident that they hold the heavenly mandate than at any time since the Ottoman Empire.

I'd suggest that US religiosity is closer to Islam if viewed in these sociological terms. Whereas Europeans lost God in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1940s, Americans saw their powers and their values triumphant. It was God's blessing of the United STates with economic power, military power, and visionary leadership that proved the country's superiority and gave it the right to establish moral systems such as Bretton Woods, the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, and the free trade movement. And bolstered by these achievements, religiously confident Americans persisted in their faith much longer than their cohorts in Asia or Europe. Their God was still dominant; their faith still demonstrably powerful; and their principles spread messianically through the new international institutions. That American confidence is clearly starting to change now due to some lost wars, some economic disasters, the failure of Christianity to address the needs of gays and lesbians, and other social exigencies. But our movement towards secularism (or secular religions, ideologies, in Nietzsche's brilliant schema) only began twenty or thirty years ago.

I view Mormons in these terms as well. Mormons were not smart enough to realize that their global preeminence stemmed from the destruction of half the world, Franklin Roosevelt's insistence that the Europeans shift all their gold to the US and buy all theri weapons from the US, and the fact that only one country still had the power in 1945 to dictate the future course of events to others. Unkowingly, Mormonism rose on the back of FDR liberalism adn the political power and economic prosperity that emerged from Roosevelt's world. The stone was rolling forth from the mountain, to be sure, but Mormons didn't notice that it had been shoved by a cynical old atheist in a wheel chair.

Nevertheless Roosevelt's achievements set the stage of several decades of Mormon confidence. Our economy was better than everyone else's, our missionaries were welcome in most countries where people wanted to know why the US was so prosperous. This appeared to be the results of pure religion, with the Mormon God driving things rather than the crippled God in Hyde Park. It has consdquently only been in the last two or three decades, when American power has ebbed in relative terms, that Mormons have gotten to the questioning stage that struck Europe and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s.I think Americans are headed in the same direction as their secular brethren in other rich countries, just after a late start.

The interesting question is whether Nietzsche will now be proved wrong. Will agnostic and athiestic people be strong enough to live without religion or ideology? Or will they gravitate towards pseudo-faiths like Tea Party conservatism, or pro- or anti-European Unity movements, idiological warfare over permanently entrenched high unemployment rates and emerging class structures.

In short, will the secularism that began in Europe and has spread here prove lasting and durable or will some religion or thought process eventually regain its hold over the American, even Morridorian, heart?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Gordon R Guymon ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 09:12AM

Makes me want to go read some 'Dune' by Frank Herbert.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lucky ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 10:17AM

So, you are saying that the (tiny) *success* of MORmONISM around the world is really due to (dumb luck and ) MORmONISM being an American religion and Its subsequent ability to run in the wake of post WWII American influence/ dominance in the world, and NOT so much as a result of MORmONISM being "THE" (exclusive) work of God ? and that as US influence in the world ebbs so will MORmON (LDS Inc) fortunes?

Interesting concept! .....That means MORmONISM may not actually take over the world as Joseph Smith predicted. Even as a MORmON failed to seize control of the Whitehouse.

Yah.... why is the MORmON latter day *restoration* having such a hard time actually taking over Christianity from the keepers of traditional Christianity that MORmONISM insists are hopelessly apostate and in conflict with the will of God.

Why is hopelessly apostate Christianity still by far the most effective vehicle for conveying the basic Christian message/ ideals in the world, instead of the grand divinely mandated MORmON restoration?

Its almost like this is really a political deal and MORmONISM isn't nearly as big and important as it claims to be.

Hmmmmmmmm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYWqVvUZWQ

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jpt ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 10:31AM

flies around, poops them wherever. Some grow, some not at all, some better than others. Depends on the environment they land in. Years later, we notice the ones that grew, but are unaware of the ones that didn't. Nothing really miraculous about it. Fortunate circumstances for the survivors.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smorg ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 03:29PM

Japan and China are hardly all the eastern countries (and they were never big hotbeds of Buddhism to begin with). Buddism is still thriving in Asia. It's a non-materialistic and non-god-worshiping religion that believe in reincarnation and karma (what you do comes back to you either in this life or the next, no matter what). I'd argue that it was hardly affected at all by WW II, and that the Asians are hardly money hungry and morally eroded like you grossly overgeneralized.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Inspired Stupidity ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 11:26PM

Well, that's a curious post.

You are right: Japan and China are hardly "all the eastern countries." But then again, I never said that. I used those two cases as examples because they were the countries that suffered the most from WWII and experienced the same general trends as Europe. For what it is worth, though, in the 1930s Japan and China combined accounted for most of East Asia's population and the vast majority of its economic and political influence. Though I did not mean it that way, they are a pretty good approximation for "East Asia."

You are wrong, though, when you write that Japan and China were never hotbeds of Buddhism. I'm not sure where you get your history. Buddhism started in India but was soon overwhelmed by resurgent Hinduism. The vast majority of Buddhists from that time until the 19th or 20th centuries was in fact Chinese. And even today most Japanese identify themselves as Buddhists even if the influence of that faith is minimal in practical terms. The notion that neither country was a hotbed of Buddhism would come as a surprise to historians of Buddhism.

You are right and wrong on Buddhism in the rest of East Asia, or at least Southeast Asia. It is true that parts of southeast Asia have thriving Buddhist communities, but I never claimed anything different. And in any event, there are more Moslems in Southeast Asia than Buddhists. So really we are talking about a faith that thrives in Thailand, Laos, and, straining a little, Kampuchea and Myanmar.

On excess materialism and the lack of moral foundation in China, I'll defer to the Chinese, who consider this a major social and political problem. It goes back to He Shang (River Elegy) in the late 1980s, a book that Deng Xiaoping permitted to be published because it highlighted the need for a new morality. The debate that followed was massive and, for Chinese, troubling. Since then the situation has grown worse and the government is deeply worried about both the ethical bankruptcy of corrupt officials and the self-centered behavior of individual Chinese. This stuff is all over the People's Daily, the private press, and the internet. It was also highlighted in the youtube video from a couple of years ago in which a toddler was hit by a car, the driver drove off, and a dozen people ignored the child and walked by as he died.

But maybe you are right. Maybe you know more than the Chinese about Chinese morality and social stability.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smorg ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 11:58PM

Inspired Stupidity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are wrong, though, when you write that Japan
> and China were never hotbeds of Buddhism.

Shintoism is not the same as Buddhism, and the Chinese were into their own folk religion with infusions from Buddhism rather than Buddhists themselves.

> But maybe you are right. Maybe you know more than
> the Chinese about Chinese morality and social
> stability.

Considering that 50% of my DNA came from Hainan and that I spent 10 yrs growing up in various parts of SE Asia and still return to visit every few years, most Chinese would actually call me Chinese... So I wouldn't say that I know more than 'the Chinese' what Chinese morality and social is like. You, on the other hand, maybe...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Inspired Stupidity ( )
Date: June 23, 2013 12:04AM

No, Chinese would not call you "Chinese." They would call you "hunxieer." But you know that, right?

You presume I am not Chinese.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: freebird ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 08:09AM

*this was supposed to be a reply to Inspired Stupidity's post above.

This was very well thought out and well written. I'm a history buff and my favorite subject is WWII albeit the holocaust is more my focus. The more I read and learn about WWII the more questions are opened up and the more I am astounded at just how much that war molded and formed and effected our world today. It changed everything. (That probably sounds idiotic, as we all know WWII fundamentally changed our world, but until you really study it, you just can't grasp how huge that war was and that 70 years later we still feel the ripple effects.)

I really enjoyed reading this. I don't know much about Japan and China's history nor their religions, but I have some new ideas for reading material now. :-)

I fear that we won't embrace an atheist or agnostic view, but people will embrace perhaps Islam...I am amazed at how many people still attend church, still publicly pray to god, still talk about god and his blessings...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 08:11AM by charpop705.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lucky ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 09:43AM

charpop705 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This was very well thought out and well written.
> I'm a history buff and my favorite subject is WWII
> albeit the holocaust is more my focus. The more I
> read and learn about WWII the more questions are
> opened up and the more I am astounded at just how
> much that war molded and formed and effected our
> world today. It changed everything. (That probably
> sounds idiotic, as we all know WWII fundamentally
> changed our world, but until you really study it,
> you just can't grasp how huge that war was and
> that 70 years later we still feel the ripple
> effects.)

current "ripple effects" of past political upheavals (going clear back to 70 years) ?

you mean in the same way that we are still dealing with the implications of the actions of Roman Empire, specifically as it still currently impacts our modern lives in the form of Christian religion? (and in so many other ways)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihN2iOlyqp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVMQov_TFLs

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: freebird ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 10:36AM

Yes. Obviously, I was just focusing on WWII, because as I had said I am particularly fascinated with that part of history, but of course it applies to the Roman Empire, Constantine (first council of nicaea) declaring Jesus would be immortal, merging pagan holidays into Christian holdidays...yes that still effects us to this day. It's really fascinating!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Stray Mutt ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 09:27AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Inspired Stupidity ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 03:08PM

Think about the history of Mormonism. It started as a cult, expanded rapidly because of the religiosity of the American frontier and success particularly in England. But as soon as the church admitted to polygamy, England and the rest of Europe dried up. Just then the church moved west and became a Utah phenomenon, with little more.

It stayed in that form, sending occasional missionaries to other places but basically content to be a Mountain West community. And the rate of growth was not that high. The quaint Utah culture continued through the McKay period, when Colonel Sanders ran the church in a pretty tolerant and tolerable way.

In the meantime, Roosevelt. If any of you are interested in World War Two and the way the US escaped from it in world-power form, Conrad Black's bio of FDR is extremely good. (Be warned, though, it is a huge book.) By leaving the US in a dominant position and the rest of the world dying for US money, technical expertise, and culture, Pax Americana was perfect for the export of American ideas. The Mormons had their missionary program in place, and could expand it easily. The church probably did not notice this until well after the process had started--in the 1960s, I imagine--but then they came to see the fast growth as evidence of the truth of the gospel and proof of the rock-out-of-the-mountain prophesies. The period of exceptional growth in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s was thus a freak accident of history and the result of wise strategic actions by a narcissist with socialist inclinations--someone the Mormons hated and considered evil.

Being twenty years behind historical reality, in the 1970s and 1980s the church defined itself in terms of growth. Arrogant and sure that the only thing they needed was greater efficiency in spreading God's gospel, they stiffled all creativity in the church and all flexibility in the missionary programs. Now Boyd could deliver "To The One," telling gays, lesbians, intellectuals, women to shut the hell up and get in line. And Kimball and Hinckley could dumb down the doctrine so that any idiot, especially prospective members in the non-Christian world, could understand it. Mormonism was no longer about joy, a personal relationship with God, or even virtue: it was about control and growth. The respect for the individual that McKay and others had in some degree was now gone, swallowed up by the whale that was Mormon institutional arrogance.

But the US was already in decline as a cultural icon. Vietnam was a big deal here, humiliating the United States to leaving it to treat the Soviet Union as an equal. The oil shocks and the harm they did to the US economy and US confidence did more damage, with Germany and Japan starting to look like superior economies by the late 1980s and early 1990s. Add the loss of bipartisanship that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, political polarization, the gradual weakening of the middle class, unrequited terrorist strikes against the US in Lebanon, Somalia, and elswhere, making the US look like a helpless giant. The disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps next in Syria?) made the US look even more incompetent, inconsistent, and ineffective.

So we get two trends that really hurt the church. One is the loss of worldwide respect for America, which translates into less interest in Mormonism and fewer conversions. The other is the apostacy of so many Mormon believers, people who regreted the passing of the McKay culture and were offended by the jack-booted religion imposed by Kimball, Packer, Hinckley, and all the others. By mistaking Roosevelt's success for God's will, the church bet the farm on worldwide expansion and then found that the family and the livestock were standing unsheltered in the freezing rain, getting sick.

That is today's church.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lucky ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 05:22PM

Inspired Stupidity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> intellectuals, women to shut the hell up and get
> in line. And Kimball and Hinckley could dumb down
> the doctrine so that any idiot, especially
> prospective members in the non-Christian world,
> could understand it.

Well, that's just the way a MORmON Corp. president has to roll when they hope to sell american style family togetherness based on unmentionable (STUPID) secret handshakes the same way that Burger King and McDonalds sells burgers and fries.

This goes a long way toward explaining why LDS INC finally reached a million members in 1947 instead of 1847.


If there was any joy in MORmONISM in the 60's it was only because the leaders thought it was good facade promoting MORmONISM / for LDS Inc. Marketing.
If MORmONS seemed happier it was only because they were less miserable than at other times, as they contemplated actually mattering in the great big world.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: orange ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 05:10PM

The problem is the human brain...not what part of the world or what era one lives in. Religion continues even in the most "educated" places on the planet. If you want false beliefs to go away, humans would need to evolve a brain that is seriously unemotional and flat. Much like a computer. Of course, then you lose what makes us human-

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: NeverMo in CA ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 05:30PM

Living in a city which is predominantly non-Western, I'd have to say that non-Westerners are often far *more* religious than your average Westerner nowadays. (By "non-Western" I mean that in terms of population, my city currently has a majority of residents who are immigrants from Asia as well as a large minority of Muslims from the Middle East. "Westerners," whether native-born Americans or immigrants from Europe, Latin America, etc. are definitely a minority.)

I think it just may not seem to many Westerners that non-Westerners are as religious since, with the exception of Muslim women who wear hijab, many expressions of religion among non-Westerners probably aren't obvious to us. Talk about religion with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or others from predominantly non-Western faiths sometime, though, and you might be surprised just how big a role their religious beliefs and traditions play in their lives, for good or ill. They have the same bigotries and prejudices--often far worse--as any fervent Christian fundie or TBM.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: orange ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 05:39PM

+1

I work and went to school with many Hindus and Muslims and I can say they were difficult to be around on a daily basis because of their irrational devotion to daily rituals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2013 05:40PM by orange.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: smorg ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 05:56PM

Ten of my childhood years were spent in Southeast Asia, and Nevermo in CA's observation seems spot on to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Inspired Stupidity ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 11:35PM

Religion, in the sense you're using it, permeates people's lives.

Perhaps it is easier for us to see the irrationalities, the religious nature, of customs and traditions in other people's lifestyles. But that opens a (fascinating) can of worms. What is religion? Is it a formal doctrine or is it the irrational assumptions and customs and behaviors of a group of people. If the latter, then maybe a person can renounce God (or the equivalent) and claim to be an atheist while still showing belief patterns and traditions that are "religious."

I'm edging back to the notion, made by several posters, that religion might be partly biological--or at least deeply cultural. Would an observer from another planet look at Americans or Europeans and declare us atheist societies? Or would they look at our curious assumptions about life and truth, our idiosyncratic behaviors, etc., define those things as our religion, and give it a name? We may not look as rational to those beings as we do to ourselves.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: stillburned ( )
Date: June 20, 2013 09:30PM

I've been all over India and the Middle East...eastern culture... Waaayyyy more religious than western culture, if you ask me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lori at 51 ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 05:51PM

Thank you to Inspired Stupidity for your interesting observations and viewpoint. I hope that we get to hear more from you in the future.

I don't think this was mentioned in the previous posts but I don't see God belief or relegion ever dying. Why? I have never heard what I consider an acceptable explanation from agnostics/atheist regarding death. I returned to a church (not Mormon) because my three year old son was fearing death and the secular teaching I tried to give him was just lame.

By the way the three year old lived to 20. To me there is no comfort in the agnostic/athiest viewpoint.

Lori

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: axeldc ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 05:52PM

Europe and Canada are not this nuts over religion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: June 22, 2013 06:49PM

Humans are typically religious on some level. Some is extreme, some is middle of the road, some is very minor. But, it's wise to remember that it's ancient. It's still clearly observable around the world, from Africa, to Europe to Asia.

The idea of belief in a deity or deities (and a savior in some instances) with traditional rituals/ceremonies around birth, coming of age, marriage, death is one of traits that makes us human.

It can be argued it's a primal need.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.