What is Religion?

I didn't know I'd presented one.

 

You started off with a scenario that didn't involve any spiritual elements. Then you presented us with a definition of secular religion. Don't expect any further replies unless somebody else joins the discussion. Talking to the wall is not my idea of a productive way to spend the day.

 

Apparently you are not prepared to argue against my point that 'all' religions start with a 'belief', in or about something?

ok, so are those beliefs or are they proven hard science?
Do you follow their guidance on any of it or blow it off as nonsense and unscientific?

Nope I posted what religion is, its not me that having difficulty figuring anything out here.
You on the other hand continue to confuse deity worship with religion.
While religion can be deity worship deity worship is not necessarily religion.

Right, granted most religions are based in some deity, however as I posted on the previous page a deity is not a requirment for something to be a religion.

Yes, a citation demonstrating that deities are not required.

thats ok, I take that as a concession, since thats what most head strong people do when their back is against the wall.

 

No. I just think it's a waste of time trying to engage in dialogue with somebody who can't think straight. You go on and on about how deity worship isn't required for religion, but you're preaching to the choir, since long before you graced HF with your presence, I was arguing that very position, as I did at great length with Meagain on this thread. But you're too wrapped up in yourself to notice. And statements like "I posted what religion is", as if you know that definitively, are laughable. Your last go-around about theocracy on the natural rights forum convinced me that you're basically clueless.

 

Nope have not seen you and meagain arguing that in this thread.
Then why do you insist on combining the two when in your responses instead of simply agreeing to the point? Trolling maybe?

nah just proving my points
I always give you option to prove otherwise.
or bail

Far more definitively than you have argued in this thread.
Your main theme is that religion requires something divine which is simply not the case, something sacred as I explained ot you, yes, but not divine contrary to what your posts demonstrate!

remember?

seems you contradict yourself

Oh yeh I remember, you made some remark about the evils of theocracies and turns out egypt is well known to be the most successful theocracy on the planet lasting over 3000 years.
The multitude of go rounds with you on rights and con law left my jaw sore and a dent in the table. It got so bad with so many legal errors I just had to gasp. Id have to make a living at this to spend the time needed to sort the legal mess you proselytise.

Then you bail out of the debate when you find yourself down in the trenches!

 

Maybe not. Definitions aren't right or wrong, only more or less useful. The notion that "God" or the supernatural is an essential element of religion is, by no means, universally shared among scholars in the field of comparative religion.They find it useful to include the "godless" religions like Taoism and Buddhism in their books on world religions because of the striking similarities of those deeply spiritual communities to theistic communities. Are they wrong? You don't have to look at religion that way, but they do. From there, it seems a small step to including the American Humanist Society, the Ethical culturalists, and those atheist mega-churches which, in their own way, are on a spiritual path.

 

No rule. Just interest.

 

What you are looking at here is usage.
The word religion is much broader than the narrow usage you have chosen
Most scholars agree that the word religion means to 'bind'.
That and to avoid someone simply claiming its philosophy you must 'strongly' believe to that which you are bound (obligation) your conviction (whatever that my be) and put it into active governance of your life.
The Kliens had the obligation to not be an accessory to sin, hence did not bake the cake.
This is a result of their religion.
There was no life and death or eminent danger at stake which is the only reason that the Kliens would have had to bake a cake, in fact the gals could have went one block away to another bakery to get their cake.
In your definition, worship of a deity is one of many subsets of religion, not the other way around.

 

The Kliens had the obligation to not be an accessory to sin, hence did not bake the cake.
This is a result of their religion.
There was no life and death or eminent danger at stake which is the only reason that the Kliens would have had to bake a cake, in fact the gals could have went one block away to another bakery to get their cake.
[/QUOTE] That's your opinion, but a problematic one". Freedom of religion is an important right, but not an absloute one. [W]hether an act is immoral within the meaning of the statute is not to be determined by the accused's concepts of morality."Cleveland v. U.S.; Reynolds v. U.S. The Kliens were engaged in a bakery business selling their wares to the public. That brought them under the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The leading case in that area is Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.,390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968)(per curiam), a case that applied the 1964 public accommodations law to a restaurant owner who had religious objections to having black and white people eating together. Couldn't they just go a block away to another restaurant? Probably not, because this was the South in the 60s, when lots of people had similar objections. If the Court had upheld his "religious" right, lots of other folks might also "get religion". And that's the danger of allowing such objections today. Significantly, the Supreme Court cited that case with approval in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision in 2018.[22][23], a Colorado case involving another cake baker, Jack Phillips, who had religious objections for making wedding cakes for gay couples. The Court ruled in his favor, but on narrow grounds that there was evidence the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had it in for religious people. On remand, he eventually lost.

The latest variant in this series is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which Lori Smith, without being sued by anyone, brought an action for declaratory relief to protect her from being sued or prosecuted for denying her web designer services to LBGTQs. The Supreme Court, in extraordinary disregard of its precedents on ripeness and standing, granted certiorari. Given the contempt the three latest "conservative" additions to the Court have shown to precedent and their religious fervor, after perjuring their way onto the Court, who knows what they will do. A novelty of the case is that Smith isn't relying on claims of religious freedom so much as freedom of expression as a web designer artiste. Considering that ours is a pluralistic society in which people of different backgrounds have to learn to get along, a holding giving primacy to individual conscience would be disastrous. A literal interpretation of Leviticus requires execution for gays. Religious delusions among paranoid schizophrenics are common, and we don't need to encourage them with favorable laws. Nor do we need to encourage convenient claims of religion by bigots. They used to use religion to justify slavery, and there is still plenty of room for that in the Bible.

 

Yes, indeed. The agenda of the scholars who write books on world religions seems to be to bring out and study the striking similarities between theistic religions and non-theistic Asian specimens. Other scholars have found it useful to speak of "political religion" with reference to fascist and Marxist movements, and even the "civil religion" of the U.S. I think "quasi-religion" might be a better term for those, but the similarities are there.
Secular Religion.
Nationalism as Religion: The Proper Love of Place in Today’s Politics - Public Discourse
Secular religion - Wikipedia
Carlton J. H. Hayes, Nationalism as a Religion (1926)
Rothbard on Marxism as a Religion | David Gordon
Fascism as Political Religion on JSTOR
Raymond Aron, Opiate of the Intellectuals

Atheists can also have agendas. I suspect that one reason atheist "horsemen" like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins view fundamentalist religion as truer to the meaning of the term than "progressive" versions is that the former are easier to discredit than the latter.

 

Hardly problematic in a 'just' legal system.

No one is talking about absolute except you.
Back to extremes I see.

The case has nothing to do with accommodations.

Bravo for the court. They got one right. But then even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes, a commercial suit she should get her ass handed to her.

Right back to your irrational extremes I see
Many people went into slavery on their own volition simply to pay off a debt owed.
Just because its this huge evil in your mind does not mean it was for everyone throughout history.
Be nice if you could keep it real.

 

Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has everything to do with public accommodations, which includes eating establishments and any other enterprise like your baker doing business with the public. You show your ignorance.

In ancient Rome. In the Ante-Bellum Southern U.S.? Indentured servitude, which went out of style by the end of the eighteenth century, wasn't the same as slavery, strictly for African imports and their progeny, in which the slaves were property.

OMG. Are you trying to justify slavery now.???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You are a slave, and you dont even know it! lol

I agree with this.

You cannot be treated differently by a place of public accommodation
because of your race, color, religion, or national origin.

What do you mean accommodation?

: the act of accommodating someone or something : the state of being accommodated: such as. : the providing of what is needed or desired for convenience.


nice commercial theory that is completely unconstitutional.
While I agree in concept it nonetheless destroys the bill of rights EXCEPT in exigent circumstances and that would be up to a court to decide.

That is the establishment of government religion, commercialism.

Im for a just legal system, contrary to the Justus club we have now that you enjoy promoting.

Unlike you I judge the judges.

 

I mean what the law means. A public accommodation is any business that provides services to the public. Title II of the Civil Rights Act defines a public accommodation as any hotels, restaurants, theaters, or any business' whose operations affect commerce. Like a bakery.

The Supreme Court upheld it in Katzenbach v. McClung. That settles it, unless the Supreme Court changes its mind.

Fortunately, you're not running the country.

Asif they care. I judge them too, for all the good it does.

 

...

 

What is Religion? It's the seeking to - and process of - the return to the Source.

 

The Source can mean a variety of things. There was a New Age cult by that name following a charismatic guru named Father Yod. There was also a novel by that title by James Michner, tracing the history of Israel from pre-monotheistic times thru the creation of the modern State of Israel. And of course a U.S. based monthly covering hip hop entertainment and culture. Could you elaborate on what you mean.

 

Like Neo?