What is Religion?

I believe they intend good things. But President Trump intended good things, and look how we disagree with his methods.

There are aspects of many philosophies that I disagree with. One thing I mentioned recently had to do with Iran. They want their people to be accountable with strict adherence to religion... While that is very devout, I mentioned (What do you think of the death penalty?) that it's difficult for Iranian people to see the modern world if the barbarism obscures them for the rest of the world, (or the Western world). No sooner did I post my thought then it was announced there would be imprisonment for protesters and it didn't prescribe the death penalty.

The road to shame, chaos, and obscurity is paved with good intentions but when the rest of humankind is considering whether or not they agree with the premise, there is reason to evaluate the best way to serve a higher purpose without sacrificing one's virtues and morals.

 

My stance matches Durkheim as I posted in the op.

your moral conduct is controlled either by you or by prescription

morals
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Yes religion is a comprehensive composite, the sum of 'your' morals/value calls as someone put it.

Sure it does.

Yes they form churches, and generally they pick a name for their religion, I believe there's as many as 4 000 religions at this time.

Sure what you're reading in the op, Durkheim's opinion is actually a reflection of my own personal conclusions in the study of religion prior to ever knowing he existed.

I've never heard of it but neither will I rule it out.

I don't know what it means because I don't know anyone that doesn't have a religion.

You have to at least include governments as a distinction when discussing morals just like you have to bring in society when discussing individual morals.

People that join a church all agree on some points of that religion or what that religious focuses on and when people join together and interact with one another that would be considered social as far as I know.

And I said no

Did your actions cause any harm or injury?

Whoever did not cause injury and if neither caused injury then neither would have a higher moral ground than the other.

Of course there's going to be conflict there's no system known to man that wouldn't cause conflict that I'm aware of.

That would be circumstantial are they value calls?

Is it a value call? Does it do harm?

Does the substance cause all individuals harm or place them are those around them in eminent danger? Was it put to a referendum to be voted or is it just pandering to the snowflake crowd?

Circumstantial, was a referendum put out to the people or did some agency simply make a blanket call and fit everybody into the same basket?

Again that's highly circumstantial, I won't go so far as to say no laws but I will go so far as to say a few laws as in very few laws.

If you prescribe and enforce your religion upon someone else then you established your religion as the dominant Force, such as if you force non-use of psilocybin you have now violated the religious rights of the southwestern Indians.

This seems to be a context problem, any actions conducted among others is or can be considered social as far as I know? I have never denied social conditions, somehow you took it down that path and I don't understand why.

I suppose unless you can prove that morals and personal value calls as someone put it are not part of religion then Stalin's regime was not religious. Arguably Stalin's regime was religious since it imposed a state religion over individual religions.

I can't dissect and speak for the government itself since most of these people are dead, however I can speak to the results and the conditions of his regime.

Stalin was opposed to religion as defined within the scope of a deity. It goes without saying he was not opposed to his religious variant.
His religion resulted in the murder of millions.

This question makes no sense whatsoever it's the equivalent of asking; is forcing you to stay behind bars forcing imprisonment on you.

 

A pretty good way to hustle a living by describing that which we are not able to know to those that worry about such.

 

For a state to force religion or present conditions/predicaments (like the US does through commerce legislation) that is wrong by every consideration.

 

and the irony of course is that it applies to both sides of the argument!

 

I don't see it as cut and dried...

The main premise that you seem to be citing here is that we all (every country) do it the same way.

This is a fallacy, and in some ways, it parallels my feeling about the way we (in the Western world) interpret the Russian Federation. We do not get to have such an expectation, and we need without doubt or uncertainty to understand that there are many countries in the world who have misgivings about the way we lead our country, or with the presumptions of our economy (capitalism, but mixed with socialism in that some social programs originate through taxation or base themselves on state control). The individualism that we pride ourselves on does not provide for the communal understanding that another culture perhaps has with its collectivist economic personality. In the days of old, we devalued "communism". Now we learn that the most functional "happy" places to live have state funded paid family leave for both parents (mom & dad; not only mom). They have a "medicare for all" approach to health benefits. And with all of that, there are fewer social problems.

But our country isn't like that. Maybe it will be to some extent one day as we realize which parts we would like to make "automatic" by way of state funding.

 

That's the most obvious yes.

It's a belief, typically evaluation and a conviction and commitment in action to your belief

Sure like two people talking and discovering that they both have the same morals and then they start hanging out together.

you would have more than one in agreement on whatever belief in question.

If you're saying that there's many religions that are not based on worshiping a deity I would agree with you but there's far more that are based on a deity.

I already gave you the definition for a morals and basically if you act in accordance with your morals they are beliefs that you commit to in action and the sum of those morals are your religion.

Ok

No

Yes when the gay people's morals demand that you are an accessory to the commission of a sin.

Bigamy

Absolutely, same thing if they demanded Jews and Muslims to eat pork.

In my opinion, yes

What's the difference if the democracy is representative or direct in a government that's not a kleptocracy like ours?

That's purely commercial, however I ride my motorcycle all over the place without a seatbelt.

So can the misuse of an automobile so do we ban automobiles because somebody might get in an accident or decide to drive into a crowded gathering?

It's enforcing one religion over the other yes.

It's always been that way, there's nothing new really in that other than a lot of people aren't aware of it.

 

My post was with respect to religion.

 

Understood. I will try again with that in mind.

The idea of separation of church and state gets complicated when we attempt to assert a certain concept cannot be curriculum. As an example, we could disallow special areas for prayer on the grounds that it implies religion and therefore indoctrinates religion.

For my part, I think more clearly when I pray. I feel more confident, and I feel grounded in positivity and tradition rather than lost in an endless maze of lies and abuse. That's my personal feeling, and allowing prayer isn't the same as requiring it.

But I can also see how a student who for example has an alternate gender identity might feel like the institution is aligned with an adversarial element and want to go somewhere neutral.

I'm not sure what commerce legislation means, but I think about legislation significantly. One law I dreamed up that would foster alignment with traditional values rather than with the adult entertainment industry was an option to opt in or opt out of adult content at the service provider level mandated by law. This would be simple to implement and would allow for people to better address their family needs. Each time I pay my bill, I can opt in or opt out. Same goes for cellular internet providers.

The legislation in my opinion should serve to improve society; not by weighing the desires of voters, but by protecting them from themselves. Sometimes that may mean we indoctrinate something that parallels religious wisdom, but it never needs to offend someone who has made other choices.

 

Yes it's nothing more than a bucket title for the sum of your morals etc.

Yes when people join together that have the same set of morals especially if they document it that is organized religion.

I don't really see a difference there as it would pertain to religion, all religions have different sources and the person agrees with whatever source they bond and adhere to

Is the purpose of every organization in the world to set up a set of morals? Do they all qualify for a 501 3C for instance? I don't think so.

That's where ethics comes in which is the study of morals to help reasonable people decide and choose the best are most appropriate morals, which is not the same as making it law of course. (unless you live in america)

Are you trying to imply that a private business has to do business with you under any and all circumstances?

A sin of course is a violation of some divine law that you've adopted as part of your religion.
I don't think Jews would enjoy baking swastika cakes.

Yep, unless of course that person is in imminent danger and there are no reasonable alternatives available.

I don't understand how the color black could violate someone's morals?

Bigamy it was a secular title that the government set up as a secular synonym to religious polyamory. The government has no business telling you how many wives you can have or husbands for that matter that wives can have.

So then you have no idea that the pork or basically any animal that roots in the ground was against the religion because of trecinea that in those days could kill them?

Advisory no requirement yes.

Sure unless we believe the legislature has a crystal ball? Does your attorney decide what's best for you without any input from you?

Maybe in the Stone age but not nowadays in the land of Internet!

Sure they are, and if they're not they can just abstain from casting a vote just like any senate or legislature would do.

Absolutely, but I wouldn't put it out as long I would put it out as an advisory.

There's no such thing in practice.

Yeah that's what the piece of paper says!
There's no reason you still can't have Representatives to argue argue your case on the floor.

What's the difference between a group of lawyers sitting in the legislature or congress democratically deciding for you or you sitting at home deciding for yourself? It seems pretty Democratic either way since they are both exactly the same system, majority rules.

The difference of course is it's tyranny of the majority of lawyers rather than tyranny of the majority of citizens.

That's a nice commentary but it doesn't apply to the points previously made.

I don't know of any laws restricting people from running an automobile into a crowd.

I'm not saying there should be no laws, neither am I saying that democracy should be 100% absolute which of course is an extreme in both cases.

 

Thats not possible, they instead get involved in religion (abortion) therefore people vote according to their religion and the country is in a constant religious battle and all eyes are off the magicians left hand while the right hand is free to do whatever.

The government at large should protect our reserved rights then let the chips fall where they may, instead they use it to control to their whim.

 

I'd like to see the real thinkers doing the string pulling when it comes time for the chips to fall.

Our inalienable rights are very important to me. In my life sometimes there are matters that begin to wear on me and I wonder if people aren't tilting the table when the chips are falling.

I don't believe a Laissez Faire approach to government will produce the result we want for future generations. In that way, I hope someone is putting their best effort into steering 'the chips' where they need to fall.

I would have to agree that if the wrong people are 'steering', or they steer things in a direction that is disgraceful or disregards our hopes for the future in an effort to align themselves for political gain (re-election), then I believe in committee oversight. But I do not think a "hands-off" (Laissez Faire) approach is effective at this late stage.

If we are prescribing "hands-off", it would seem that we throw caution to the wind, and it's gale force wind!

I guess there are some parts of your statement that remind me some folks have faith in and fully believe in America's ability to resurface, upend, or resurrect conservative ethics. But I think conservative ethics are a lost cause at this point. You'll never see Gen Z emulate the conservatism of their great grandfather generations.

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm for a more guided approach with a checks and balances system for preventing failure or broken ethics.

 

A cause of disunity and trouble throughout the World and a ridiculous ideology.

 

It just claim they both have morals therefore both have religion, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here?

No not any again its circumstantial, however different religions / churches register as a 501 and if the government acknowledges it that's pretty much an indicator that it's religion.

Wow that's a tangent!

Any business can refuse to do business with you or service you or serve you or any reason outside of commercial discriminatory laws, which are subject to your religion.

So then what you're saying is that if you go into a Jewish bakery and demand they bake a swastika cake and they refuse that you can sue them and win right?

I'm sorry but I don't recognize that religion which religion is that?

Then what makes you think it's a religion?

So Judaism and Catholicism are the only two religions on the planet, what about Mormons are they a religion too or don't they count? Can you cite this please because it seems like you are throwing around theories that are completely inaccurate?


For example, in some Islamic, Hindu, and even Christian countries, polygamy is a normal practice or is otherwise tolerated. Some Native American, Indigenous Australian, and Mongolian peoples practice “group marriage,” where the nuclear family consists of multiple husbands and multiple wives.Jan 16, 2020

Polygamy, Religion, and the Law
https://www.scaringilaw.com › blog › january › polygam...

That's nice trivia but it doesn't apply to what we're talking about.

I have no idea I never looked into it.

Here we go with the always never inapplicable debate choices that you like to throw out here. It's circumstantial. (composition fallacy)

When you have a court that can tell you you're going to lose your property over something you did I don't see that as toothless, how do you figure that's toothless?

Hardly, that's your claim that's what I'm advertising but not what I'm advertising you don't know what I'm advertising outside your interpretation of what I'm saying.

Really, who says it doesn't work?

You can't be serious, so you think everyone in the US which is what approximately 360 million people are all going to submit bills to Congress and Congress is going to sit down and read them how can you be serious about that?

Oh come on, what is a vote in the house and what is a vote in Congress and what is the vote in legislatures, why vote at all that's the case.

Again I responded to your extreme All or nothing post, motorcycles are an exception I'm not sure why that wasn't apparent?
Are you familiar with analogies? They are used to present an idea often metaphorically by example.

Sure when you take an extreme position in One direction I comment on that extreme position which often times requires an extreme position from me it's a ridiculous way to discuss something but it is what it is.

I think we should be represented and unless these guys elected to the house, congress, or the legislature, comes with a standard issue crystal ball I think the only way to do that is by referendum unless you have some other alternative to suggest. 360 million Bills doesnt seem like a very good way to address a matter.

Again are you suggesting majority votes from your lawyers sitting on the bench are divined from their crystal balls, or are you talking about some kind of positive statements made by the people at large in this country by referendum?

Well you pull a lot of things out of context it's not a total waste but neither does it negate the premise. Then when I respond you dont seem to make the connection to analogies offered. Not sure if its you or me or both.

 

Me, too, because (1) ShyOn is claiming oneness with Durkheim and their views couldn't be farther apart. Durkheim was a social determinist who saw both religion and morality as products of society and functioning to promote social control and cohesion ; (2) to Durkheim and other students of religion, the concept of a completely private,"individual" religion not involving a community would be an oxymoron, and the idea of an individual personal morality not borrowed from society would be equally unheard of; (3) most ancient pagan societies didn't see the connection between religion and morality that more recent religions do. They emphasized cultic acts instead of doctrine and ethics. (Ehrman,2018,The Triumph of Christianity,p.82 ; and (4) Durkheim's theory, based on what he considered to be the most basic (i.e., primitive or simple) society, the totemism of the Aruta aboriginees of Central Australia, is difficult to apply to the religions of complex pluralistic societies like the U.S.

Durkheim would turn over in his grave to see his name invoked in support of a half-baked theory of individualistic moralism advocated by the OP, which is so confused that arguing with it is difficult. His whole thesis was that religion was inseparable from society, and that its main function was to knit societies together around shared ideas of he sacred. That may be too "socialistic" for our OP, who balked at my suggestion that morality should involve concern for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But she should own up to the fact that she's spouting her own theory of moral individualism which neither Durkheim nor any other respectable scholar has put forward.

Much of the confusion seems to stem from the OP's opening out-of-context quotation from Durkheim, as though it was his definition of religion and was equating it with individual morality.
"Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.
Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.
Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action."
What Durkheim is saying here is that religion, unlike abstract ideas of philosophy, involves practice and action, in a communal context. As the Buddhists put it, “I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dharma (natural law), I take refuge in the Sangha (religious community.) .” For Durkheim, religion was not a set of doctrines, but a set of rituals relating to the sacred practiced by a community sharing values concerning the sacred. This is similar to Marx's emphasis on praxis. Evaluative refers to shared values rather than just thoughts .
Christianity is unusual in the emphasis it places on doctrines. Most religions put more emphasis on ritual, codes of conduct and community. But to Durkheim, the idea that religion is an individual thing rather than a communal and social one is false.

Durkheim defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” His uses of the term "Church" may be confusing, since he's not talking about the institution we know by that name, but rather a community of people sharing a common view of the sacred. Community is an essential element.