SPLIT TOPIC: Churches and Morality in Crown Heights

"I contend that human interaction, face to face and belly to belly, can be transformative in a way that cyber connection can never be..." (Captain Planet)

Captain, I could not agree more. I spend an inordinant amount of time daily trying to ensure this happens as much and as safely as possible -- in person, 'face to face and belly to belly' as you put it -- than via a cyber connection (LOL!). I am quite happy 'interacting' with my computer screen as you put it, but that doesn't make me any less morally uplifting as you. It seems to me that your argument has shifted somewhat, and I won't give you a hard time about it. Praise the lord if that makes you happy; look down your pious nose at sun-deprived heathens like myself.

You do hit upon a point I made earlier about people like the muscle-bound proselytizer on the train: Some people need the idea of an all powerful god to keep them within the parameters of socially acceptable moral norms, and some people do not. In addition it is the a-theistic perspective that morality can be defined in rational ways having nothing to do with a god concept.

Does that mean that I think that I am 'better' than Christians? Now THAT'S intriguing! I'll leave that for another day. Alls I know Capn' is that you ain't no 'better' than me...

Mr. Met, ad hominems dude.... YOU chill 'bra'

"...you're a busybody..." Mr. Met

Hmm, I don't know how to consider the above quote which is attributable to you other than to say it's ad hominem. I don't see how that is either constructive critique. Rather it's a repeated bleat, as it's not the first time you've said it -- nor the first time I've called you on your attack 'against the man'. If there is a pattern, it's that you are apt to call people names when you don't agree with them instead of responding with a rational argument why you disagree. That's not civil discourse, that's a recipe for acrimony and conflict. I would rather not indulge in that.

You did make me laugh however -- hard -- with the line about my 'current blabbering' and my 'past blabbering'; that just sounds funny to me.

Well, nothing cheapens piety more than the guy who represents moral authority lusting after little boys and girls, or cheating on his wife, or something like that. I think regardless of the presence or absence of faith, members of society who are considered authority figures -- like the folks you named -- are expected to be successful at maintaining a standard of 'morality' (decency) which the rest of us have some difficulty attaining yet receive inspiration from it.

There is an expectation that the authority figure is subject to pathos like the rest of us, but his/her presence of mind keeps them on the straight and narrow. If that's the life they've chosen, then that's the life they ought to live. If they can't live it, then they should take of the uniform, or the robe, or the collar, and indulge to their heart's content -- all within the confines of the law, of course.

Whether or not there is room for a fall from grace by the constituents of a faith is debatable, I guess. It all depends on the faith. I lean towards saying yes, there is more tolerance bestowed upon the follower than the leader - of any organization for that matter. That's why we ought not to smoke in front of children, or do drugs, or curse, or in any way pollute their vision of us, right?

Of course there are exceptions. Adulthood comes with awareness of human frailties and foibles. One's ability to accept the fall from grace of another is dependent upon the person who has fallen. The finger-pointer,judge and jury of all others deserves little compassion, if you ask me, as their hypocrisy is usually untenable, but the humble authority figure -- i.e. the police officer who believes in what he does, but because of it has lost wife and kids to divorce; has gained varicose veins and severely flat feet, and as a result starts drinking heavily -- that guy has my compassion; just my opinion.

----MHA, don't get distracted by Mr Met.---

Let's keep killing some time until the Capt returnes to tell us we should be out saving the world.

I agree with your post.

...and I think that people who tell others how to live knowingly put themselves in a position that they will be judged more harshly for their lapses. In theory, they could avoid the harsh spotlight on their lives by refraining from telling the rest of us how to live.

...people who can avoid something as simple as a spotlight aren't really victims!

The captain seems to believe that this spotlight (whether is it shown by those within their community on fellow members and their leaders, or from outside the community) is genuinely beneficial in keeping people on the straight and narrow.

As a result, he seems to believe that those not involved in such groups are automatically less committed to the causes of the groups. It's as if the group suddenly owns the cause it is in favor of, and there is no other way to pursue its ends. Some quickl examples of the logic:

a. folks not in greenpeace don't care as much about the earth as those who are.

b. folks not in a religion don't care as much about morality as those who are.

c. folks not in the NAACP don't care about advancing the rights of colored people.

d. folks not part of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance don't care about GLTBQ issues.

e. folks not in Weight Watchers don't care about their weight.

f. folks not in AA/NA aren't as committed to getting clean as those who are.

I could go on, but you get the point. Basically, the Capt says that it is either "his way or no way. We are with him or against him."

While you and I disagree on whether religion does more harm than good, we do share a mutual dislike of tamborine music.

These factors, combined with the "not at all minor" fact that we don't believe in a god, are what keep us from joining a religion.

...yet he leaps to the conclusion that we are opposed to the moral teachings of religions, or are somehow unwilling to join with others who may be religious.

Capt, I think I speak for MHA (and the other atheists that have posted) when I state that we will join with you in any struggle that pursues morality.

...but we not believe that membership in a group that has a particular cause in its name is the only way to achieve said cause.

...and we will not join your a group that insists in a belief in god as a requirement for membership.

Asking us to "pass" as believers is too much to ask, when there are other ways to acomplish the same outcomes.

Note: I expect MHA to add an additional stipulation that tamborines not be part of the entertainment.

"For the religion defenders here: do you think it is possible to live a life outside the church that is worthy of admiration?"

Implicit in the very tenets of their faith is the conclusion that if one does not live by their code, then you are burning in hell, or you are not a member of the chosen people; in other words you might be a great person, but you are a LESSER person. It's arrogance. The arrogance of FAITH.

"No God But God" is actually a book about Islam. I think you mean "God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism", by Jonathan Kirsch:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Against-Gods-Monotheism-Polytheism/dp/0142196339/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291749414&sr=1-1

The Yoga thing is a bit much, though.

HCH, Capt, et al, let's put the whole after life thing aside for the moment.

Aren't the ideals of "be excellent to each other" present in just about every religion?

And just about every social and community organization?

In addition to the Dr. Seuss book I cite above, isn't that what Bill and Ted get told through out their adventure by their movie's deity figure (Rufus) as well as the various historical characters?

While I'm not a big fan of Bill and Ted's taste in music or clothing fashion, I assert that the vast majority of us (religious, atheist, believing but non religious) obtain our sense of morality from diverse sources.

At a certain level, aren't we all Bill and Ted?

*whew* While laying here on the couch with a stomach bug, I decided to try to read this thread. I tried. Really really hard. But some things bothered me. I will now try to share them.

In the original discussion of "why don't the area churches do more for the community?" I both agree and disagree. There ARE a lot of churches that do a lot in the area (whether they decide to let you know about it or not). There are quite a few food pantries and soup kitchens in the area. I was just reading about churches not too far away that did a cash-for-guns program. Yes, Franklin Avenue has a lot of churches and many stay shut - but I also recall one church handing out free bottles of water, free fruit, and lots of other healthy snacks during the very very hot day of the About Time Kid's Day this past summer. I also attended the Murder in the Cathedral play that was hosted by a nearby Catholic church. I think a big difference between many of the (store-front) churches here and other churches (like the larger denominations in the area) is that they just don't have the money to do more. They can't run after-school programs, host trainings/classes, run community events, etc. because they are barely staying afloat. We can't say they do NOTHING when some churches are, indeed, helping those around them. Maybe if the smaller churches worked together (although someone would have to organize it) they could pool resources.

I REALLY don't understand this blanket Christianity that gets discussed. I was raised in a Christian church that stated "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things love" as their statement of intent. The only essential was to love one another and to love God. All this other supposed belief (like this weird yoga belief, the pro-lifers, the anti-homosexuality, etc.) that "Christians" hold are actually individual beliefs. I read someone (possibly MHA, but possibly not...it was like 10 pages back) say that why "worship" God when you don't worship your parents, instead you had a discussion. I get that. I completely get that. And my relationship with God is a discussion. It is not my "church's" belief that all people who love one another should be permitted to marry - its MINE based on what I interpret God's will and wants to be. It's not my "church's" belief that a woman who has truly thought about it and has decided to terminate a pregnancy should be permitted to and be supported in her decision - its MINE based on what I interpret God's will and wants to be. I have a relationship with God that is simply between me and him - I may listen to what other people, like a paster, may say because I trust their knowledge and know that they've studied more - but that's based on me knowing them. And just because they DO say it, doesn't mean I believe it.

Many people say they are ___something___ and then do things that are against that group's belief. Don't judge the group on the people within it. I am a Girl Scout leader and before each meeting we say the pledge and promise. We promise that we will do a lot -- including "respect myself and others". Certainly up to personal interpretation. If I get a little too over-indulgent and overeat one meal, I may not be respecting myself according to some, but I may just see it as something that happens and is fine. It's your personal interpretation and should not make it look like the entire group feels that way about the way something is written. Those who are religious don't represent EVERYONE who is religious.

I think that the best way for change to happen in the community is to get PEOPLE to work together. The churches in some towns/cities become great centers of help/culture/etc. because they have the building to use, the structure in place, and the people to do the work. But if they aren't doing that here, we need to get together whether they are religious or not - and regardless of what religion within that "religious" spectrum - to make our community what we think it should be. Segregating and separating people should never be the goals of a community.

I grew up in suburbia and the biggest homeless shelter in the city, the food pantries, the coat-drives, the after-school kids activities, the addiction-support meetings, the community adult sports teams, the book clubsm the indie-rock shows, etc. all were done through the church because the PEOPLE within that already-created organization decided to do it. If these churches aren't doing it, places like Launch Pad begin - and are successful- because the other community organizations aren't taking on those roles. Look at the First Unitarian Church in Philly. I saw a lot of indie-rock shows in that basement during college and never once saw something God related - the members of the church saw a need in the community (a venue for smaller musical acts) and so supported their community by providing what they had.

I am a Christian. As are many of my friends and much of my family. I believe in a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriage, female-equality, social services, and lots of things that other Christians (including some friends and family of mine) don't believe in. That's their interpretation and relationship with God.

Some people are easily swayed. Some people don't read or study on their own and just believe someone else's interpretations. Those followers are the ones that worry me in this world. But that's not only in religion. In ALL things people should make their own decisions and question those who try to tell them what to do. As a third grade teacher I see leaders and followers within my own students. And one of the biggest things I try to teach my students is that you should never blindly follow something trying to get you to believe something/do something without researching and thinking about it first. Don't jump off the building's roof because everyone else did. But if you look around and see that the building is on fire and it's the most logical way to live; jump.

@xlizelix- In my mind you do not sound like a religious person, but a godly one. What you describe as a quiet relationship with god sounds very close to the "conversations" I have with myself, in my own head, in which I determine (with logic and reason) my actions. It sounds as though you do the same. You pick and choose in a thoughtful manner what makes sense to you to believe/do, and you do it in good faith that your course of action is what (your) god would want.

If most religious people shared in your form of utilitarian faith, I'm not sure that this thread would exist. I think it's great that your views are expressed here, and I understand defending your notion of "good" Christianity, but I think people with your modern religious view would be lashing out against the extremists/exploiters who tarnish the reputations of religions.

I often hear atheists say, "some people need religion." I've said such myself. And yet, it is as high and mighty and judgmental a statement as most any I've ever heard from a religious person. We forget that there is something mystifying about ritual and custom and the coming together of people in a peaceful manner to be/feel good together. If there was some "group" you could join in which there was no supremely moral authority, just a community of those who wanted to progress through discussion and action, I might join such a group...

Xlizellx, for the record, the food that you saw handed out by that church on Franklin Avenue was donated by the businesses on Franklin Avenue. I was really irked that day because the way it was given out to people would lead one to believe that the church had something to do with the goods being offered. They didn't.

Ntfool, thanks for the correction. You are right, I got the name of the book wrong.

Capt,

I fail to see how you can leap from someone to not having a faith in god, to not having a faith in things that can not be proven scientifically.

Are you really stating that one can not pursue and appreciate abstract ideals and concepts like "love", "beauty", "truth" and "justice" without believing in god?

Although I have a really basic understanding in human history, I've come to understand that we are occupying a distinct moment in time, and we now understand things that we did not in the past.

For example, in the past many purported that the existence of things they did not understand (such as fire, love, justice, weather, mountains, wildlife and space) were absolute proof of god's existence.

Some still point to these things and concepts as proof of the existence of a god (or several gods....). While I am not among them, you appear to be ...and I'm ok with that.

However, are you stating that those who do not believe in god somehow have less of an appreciation for such concepts and our shared surroundings?

....that we are somehow less capable of seeing and experiencing the world around us than those with a faith in god?

...If you do, I am not "ok with that". I would feel you are judging me as an incomplete person when I have done nothing wrong.

Like MHA, I believe that it is very arrogant for humans to think that no other place in the universe contains life.

It is clear to me that any such life would meet the definition of "aliens", and I thus state that I find it far easier to believe in aliens than a god.

However, science has yet to prove the existence of either.

Damn, you people better not give this bug to me.

I am going to update my anti-virus software.

Hmm, PittieCity, I'm not clear what you are saying here. I mean, 'learning' -- by it's very definition -- whether in solitude or with a "group' of people, is a process of discourse and action.

The process of learning means attaining information, that was once not understood, or realized, or acted upon.