Is either one justified or are they unjustified?

Check out Falwell

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
– Rev Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Check out scary quotes

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm

Our educational systems may be contributing to the rearing of kids with almost monster-like personality traits. Are metal detectors and gun control the answer? Or are we missing the real dangers?

To say that school violence has increased over the last few decades would be a gross understatement. What has changed is not just the incidents of violence, but, most dramatically, their severity and brutality. Whereas a disgruntled student of, let’s say, the ’60s might have started a fist fight and, if he were really violent, used chains or brass knuckles, today’s disgruntled student can take his discontentment to the extreme of the wanton killing of fellow students, teachers, and anyone who happens to be in proximity to ground-zero of the carnage.

Why? What has happened in the last few decades that would account for such a sharp decline in the behavior and moral fiber of our youth?

If you listen to some of the proposed “solutions,” you get the impression that the problem is merely one of “kids falling through the cracks,” and resolving the problem is as cut-and-dried as putting some rules into place, much as you would in a prison system: “Put metal detectors at the entrance to schools,” “Punish more severely those who bring weapons to school,” “Punish parents who don’t keep guns locked up,” “Have cops patrol school halls,” and the “solutions” go on and on. But are these really solutions?

Back in the ’50s and 60’s, were any of these “solutions” in place? Absolutely not. Yet, the kind of extreme violence we see in schools today was virtually unheard of then.

What has changed?

Violence on TV and in the movies? Hardly likely. War movies were one of the hottest things in the fifties — but students didn’t generally come to school packing hand grenades and machine guns. Cowboys and Indians, and violent Westerns in general, were also extremely popular in the ’50s and ’60s — but you didn’t hear of students scalping each other.

Media influence, although probably a factor, just doesn’t appear to account for the steep decline in student behavior and general moral decay. If anything, there’s probably more of symbiotic relationship between the media and the public. The media does what it does, the public does not protest, so the media keeps pushing the envelope.

Which brings us to what has actually changed — society’s attitude toward the values this country was founded on.

Despite the fact the Thomas Jefferson called for “separation of Church and State,” our founding fathers saw fit, and obviously not contradictory, to have every courtroom display the phrase “In God We Trust.” All our money carries the same phrase. Why? Isn’t this in direct contradiction to our founding fathers’ principles? And the contradiction is so glaring that it’s difficult to imagine that it never crossed the minds of those who inaugurated it.

And if it did cross their minds, what were they thinking?

Perhaps they were thinking that the simple concept of God didn’t have all that much to do with religion. What, you say? God has little to do with religion? How do you figure that?

Let’s see if we can explain it this way. Does doing a few laps in a pool make you a good swimmer? It depends on who you ask. If you just learned to swim, your instructor will probably call you a good swimmer. If you ask someone who trains Olympic athletes, unless you’re really exceptional, he’s more likely to call you a slow boat to nowhere.

The analogy is simple. The moral values of earlier generations were such that the simple belief in God did not make you a religious person. Religion usually involved a host of rules, rituals, customs and ceremonies. Without them, you couldn’t really claim to have religion in your life; you were simply a believer in God.

Today, on the other hand, the values of society have declined so drastically that the very basic, fundamental concept of God is seen as religion. Is it?

The fact is many scientists, after delving into the complexities of our universe, have come to the realization that there must be a Creator. Does this make them religious people? Not at all. After discovering some mind-boggling phenomenon, scientists seldom sit around talking about Santa Claus or Bar Mitzvahs. But they have been known to indulge in reflections of a Creator. Apparently, religion is religion, “God” can be arrived at logically, quite independently from religious dogma.

Although a belief in God may be the first step in becoming a religious person, just as learning to swim may be the first step in becoming an Olympic swimmer, that first step, in and of itself, does not make you a religious person or an Olympic athlete.

And this is what, I’m convinced, our founding fathers were thinking.

Bringing “In God We Trust” into courtrooms and inscribing the phrase on our currency in no way goes against the grain or gist of the principles our country was founded on, and certainly not against the constitution. If our government were to start telling us when we should or shouldn’t eat meat or when we should or shouldn’t make Bar Mitzvahs, that would be fusing “Church and State.” But simply acknowledging that there must be a God, that’s not religion by any standards. That’s just as much of an intellectual outgrowth of the human thought process as acknowledging that if it’s raining there must be clouds.

Now, what does all this have to do with school violence?

The problem with all the “solutions” of locking up guns, more cops, more security devices, more severe punishment, etc., is that they were not in place years ago, yet we had nowhere near the severity of violence then as we have today. And even if we were to implement many of these “solutions,” there are only so many cops to go around, budgets will never allow every school to always have every security device. And, the bottom line is, you will never be able to watch every student every minute of every day.

But, wait, there is a device that’s very cheap and can keep an eye on every student every minute of every day. It may not necessarily completely eliminate all violence, but it certainly can reduce its severity and incidence, as it has done very well in the past. This device was in virtually every public school in the fifties, yet it’s been banned in recent years from schools and many other public arenas. This “device” is “God.”

Giving kids a conscience can, and has, and does in many communities, greatly reduce violent behavior. I can just hear it now: “But God is religion, and public schools are run by the State.” Nonsense. God is not religion; after you believe in God, there’s still a long way to go to religion. I know of no mainstream religion that would consider you a religious person if all you believed in was God.

We must put “God” back in our classrooms, and in grades is low as kindergarten. This is our only hope of reverting to previous, less violent times.

And for those who will still argue that God is religion, which of course it is not, and that it is “unconstitutional,” I say this: It is unconstitutional to hold people against their will, but we do it to jurors regularly so they can render a just verdict. We hold kids in schools against their will, in the interest of giving them an education. Martial law is also unconstitutional, but during natural disasters we routinely institute curfews to keep people from looting or rioting.

In the interest of saving lives and families we can certainly push aside — legally, as we do in other cases — an issue which, at best, does not contradict constitutional requirements and, at worse, perhaps it does, but is perfectly acceptable in favor a greater benefit to society.

Teaching kids that if they kill or steal they will be held accountable is not a constitutional issue. It’s the law. And the notion of including God as one those who will hold them accountable, doesn’t suddenly turn a civil issue into a religious one. It merely adds another dimension to the mandates of a civil society.

In a post 9/11 world, you might hear another objection to teaching kids about God: “Look at all the killing by suicide murderers in the name of God. How can you say teaching kids about God will curtail violence?”

Well, not only can you say that, but suicide bombers, ironically, PROVE my point. The problem with killing in the name of God is not in the concept of God, or in religion, for that matter. The problem lies in what is being taught that God wants from you. If you’re going to teach people that God wants you to kill, then that’s what many of them will obviously do.

And therein lies the proof that teaching kids about God would be the greatest deferent to the kind of extreme violence we’ve been witnessing lately. If the concept of God is so powerful that it can be used to get people to kill themselves over it, imagine if we can harness that power to teach kids that “God does not want you to kill?” Actually, we don’t have to imagine it. We have a history that seems to support this. We’ve just gotten so caught up in this politically correct nonsense that we’ve lost track of what’s in our own interest.

I must concede, however, that to teach kids in public schools about God from any particular religious perspective would, in my opinion, infringe upon their religious rights and would be unfair to their desires to stick to their own religious views. But to teach kids about God in the most basic and “generic” form, in a form that’s common to and agreeable with most mainstream religions, in a form that a scientists can arrive at simply be observing the universe, in a form that says nothing more than what our civil laws say, this cannot be religion or an infringement upon religious views.

And anyone who can object to teaching kids about God on “principle,” is only fooling themselves — they have no principles. If principles are more important to anyone than human life and kids growing up as decent human beings, such a person doesn’t deserve to live among human beings. To say that you have the “right” to remain an atheist is like saying you have the right to remain uneducated and ignorant. You may have the right to remain uneducated and ignorant, but that doesn’t give you the right to take your kids out of school. By the same token, you may have the right to remain an atheist, but that doesn’t give you the right to deny your kids the opportunity to grow up as decent human beings, and it certainly doesn’t give you the right to deny those who might get killed through violent student behavior life itself.

Ironically, not teaching kids about God is actually NOT giving them a “choice.” For people who were never taught about God as kids, God becomes a foreign concept, not a “choice.” It’s only when you teach kids about God early in life that you give them a real choice — God becomes a realistic, viable option. And if they choose not to incorporate it in their lives later on, well, then they’ve truly made their own decision.

I think, “God” and some basic issues of “right” and “wrong” should be made mandatory in every public school, over all objections, in the same way that we overrule objections to other matters in the interest of a greater good for the community at large. And we don’t have to worry about, “If we allow this, then the government will start running our lives in other ways.” Nonsense. We have similar “unconstitutional” mandates in many areas of our lives, but we still have a live and vibrant democracy in this country. We had more rules, restrictions and mandates on our personal behavior 50 years ago and perhaps even more two hundred years ago, and not only did we have a democracy then but those days were a foundation for the great nation we have today.

We have to start realizing that “democracy” is not just some play on words. It was intended to give everyone the right to live as he or she pleases, while still conforming to rules that make for a coherent and civilized society. When our constitution starts giving the impression of infringing upon our civil liberties, that is, when we become frightened of something as fundamental as sending our kids to school, then it’s time to clarify the true intent of “separation of Church and State.” And if it doesn’t satisfy everyone, perhaps we need to go as far as amending the constitution do declare that the concept of God by itself does not constitute religion.

Either way, we have to make our laws work for us, not against us. There’s no glory in the “freedom” to live in fear. True freedom comes from giving people true choices, not from concealing them. Guns don’t kill. Kids don’t kill. A complete breakdown of the sanctity of human life — that kills.

by Josh Greenberger

from shopndrop.com

Josh Greenberger
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/is-the-virginia-tech-massacre-a-harbinger-of-things-to-come-133489.html

What I want to know is what religion is going to effectively compare and contrast with Catholicism? Any ideas are welcome!

(Thanks!)

Protestants. The Protestants were originally Roman Catholice, but in the 1500’s, Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, led a sort of revolt against the Catholic Church, and nailed 95 theses in the door of the Catholic Church in Wittenburg, Germany. These were to protest the wickednesses in the Catholic Church. Those who followed him came to be called Lutherans. Martin Luther’s break from the Catholic Church was not his idea, it was the church who excommunicated him. His ‘reformation’ changed the entire world, as his teachings spread like wildfire. Prior to the Reformation, the world was in the ‘dark ages’. People could not read or write. Martin translated the Bible into German, and he opened schools to teach people to read and write. The world came out of the dark ages. This would be a very interesting topic for you. If you Google ‘Reformation’ you will find much interesting, additional information. Best wishes.

Terrorism in the name of religion, riots in god’s name, killing innocents for not worshipping a particular god, hatred or dislike for people of a particular religion, looking at worshippers of a certain god with suspicion….unfortunately such is the reality of today’s world.

Religion is a personal choice which is supposed to bring peace of mind and guide you to your life’s purpose. Loving god should encourage you to love everything he/she has created…yet why is there so much destruction and violence in the name of religion? Perhaps it’s because we focus on our differences more than our similarities. We look for ways to hate others because they are different from us. We use religion to create “Us” and “Them”. Religion is something that can actually unite all humanity; it’s only a matter of how we choose to view it.

Religions are like books with different covers, names and supposedly different philosophies, but if you read between the lines, you’ll observe that every religion promotes and encourages the same basic virtues. Let’s examine the similarities one by one:

*Reap as you sow- Every religion believes in this concept, though the names given to it may differ. While some call it sin, it’s known as Karma or the threefold principle in others. Whatever you call it, the basic principle remains the same; if you do or think of something that harms or hurts others, you will pay a price! Every religion in its own way encourages goodness. What constitutes goodness may be different, but again if you read between the lines and remove the layers of corrupt human interpretation you will realize that peace, kindness and love define goodness in its purest form.

* The Concept of soul- All religions believe that the soul is indestructible, though there may be different beliefs about what happens to the soul after death. Yet to all, the soul exists as a fundamental universal religious concept. If you believe in the soul you know it can’t be destroyed, then why attempt to destroy human lives, when you know you have no power over the soul? Why even try to destroy something that’s indestructible! Isn’t that acting against the will of any religion’s god?

* The purpose of life- Reaching god or becoming one with him is considered the purpose of life. Every religion may prescribe a different path to attain that goal, but the goal is essentially the same; reaching your creator, whether in heaven or by attaining salvation by becoming like him, free of the cycle of life and death.

Human interpretation has corrupted almost every religion; it has given us a reason to hate each other. We are told we are different because our religion insists that ours is the only god. Does that mean people who don’t follow our religion are not god’s children? How is that possible? We are all humans, we all have two eyes, two legs, two hands, and one nose…our skin colors may differ but our blood is all the same color! You wouldn’t hate your sibling if he called your father “papa” instead “dad”? Would you? Then why hate humans if they address their god by a different name? You wouldn’t hate your siblings if their philosophy of life was different from yours? Then why hate people who follow different religions?

There may be a lot of differences in the way we live and the philosophies we follow. We might also believe that we are headed towards different goals, after all Islam’s heaven is not the same as Christianity’s heaven which is different from a Hindu’s heaven, which is again unlike the Buddhist heaven, or Jewish heaven…yet if you ask yourself what heaven is, all religions believe it is a place of infinite bliss that only those of pure souls reach and hatred is the antithesis of purity.

There’s no denying that there are a lot of differences in the philosophies of religions, but if we learn to focus on our similarities instead of our differences, we’ll learn how to love and accept each other as fellow humans; children of god, even if they address him or her by different names!

Care to chime in and share your own religious thoughts and experiences? Come join others at Boomer Yearbook.

www.boomeryearbook.com is a social networking site connecting the Baby Boomer generation. Share your thoughts, rediscover old friends, or expand your mind with brain games provided by clinical psychologist Dr. Karen Turner. Join today to discover the many ways we are helping Boomers connect for fun and profit.

For www.boomeryearbook.com

Dr Karen
http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/boomers-building-tolerance-understanding-people-of-different-religions-731481.html

And last but not least: in a perfect world, what role should religion play in this whole process?

I think my name says it all
<——-

It is important to me however. I am extremely pro-choice and anti-religion in schools so I clash with the Repubs on that.

I never vote based on religion, there’s too many issues at hand to vote on something so obviously on the back burner of both party’s this year (Palin exempt). Religion should never play a role in politics, ever.

How many more lives will be lost?

The recent blasts in Bangalore and Ahmedabad have brought into focus the very potent terror network that exists in India unbeknownst to Indian intelligence agencies and the government.

The responsibility of the blasts was claimed by a group which goes by the name The Indian Mujahideen (The Indian Holy Warriors of Islam). They have not only claimed responsibility for the bombings but had also sent a warning e-mail about the attacks to various news and media houses (referring specifically to the Ahmedabad bombings). As usual the Indian Intelligence or police have no clue who is responsible so the press is inundated with unconfirmed sources and reports in the Intelligence Bureau about suspecting a foreign hand, Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami (HUJI) from Bangladesh, LeT (Lashkar-e-Toiba, also the all time favourites apart from Kashmir where the Hizb-ul Mujahideen are always responsible) and of course the outlawed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). When will they get to actual investigation and not media play God also does not know.

According to the e-mails the Hindu fundamentalist groups of India namely the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh or the Sangh Parivar) and the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishat) are being punished for their activities of conspiring to kill Indian muslims. Now there are few doubts about these organisations being the backbone of the Hindu nationalist (feels slightly odd not referring to them as fundamentalist party also but democracy is being given a chance) party the BJP (Bhartiya Janta Party). So it is little wonder that two BJP led states faced the bombings. One, the newly elected BJP government in Karnataka, and the other Gujrat, where Narendra Modi and the Gujrat riots are way too fresh in the people’s minds, something meant for Narendra Modi and L.K Advani killed another set of mostly innocent bystanders (the people affected were included Hindu’s and Muslims). Bangalore is also the IT capital of India and Ahmedabad (and Gujrat) has the most affluent set of businessmen the country has produced (diamonds, oil, stock market most of the hard cash around India is routed from here).

The BJP is probably the epitome of pseudo-secularism in the garb of democracy (while actively promoting Hindu fascism), and that is probably has many members (especially Muslims of India and abroad) agitated, the list does not end at one religion though. The Bajrang Dal (the youth wing of the BJP) is responsible for instigating violence among many localities with mixed religions across the country with the intention of causing harm and promoting an air of mistrust among Hindus and Muslims, before I forget Christians (the murder of Graham Staines being a good example).

Unfortunately for many poor, young Hindu youth in Gujrat growing up in the propaganda of the VHP, RSS with the blessings of the BJP government have created a good base for state sponsored fascism with an active supply of youth. Most of the youth working as party cadres are unemployed youth picked up by other members to do something constructive, like stop the Hindu religion from being ambushed by the Christians and the Muslims (which the Bajrang Dal claims has been a historical occurrence from the Muslim king to British Imperialism). Most of the youth are given a stipend to carry out party activities (basically genterating hatred towards Muslims everywhere using propaganda about everything from the burning of the Sabarmati Express to Ayodhya, even 9/11 with a sprinkle of Pakistan and Islamic terrorism is thrown in for good measure). All these efforts culminated towards the two most heinous crimes against the people of India (most of who were unfortunately Muslims) with the Babri Masjid demolition and the Godhra riots in Gujrat. These may also be seen to serve a greater purpose other than just mindless violence as these are very conscious efforts to ghettoise the Muslim population in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujrat and Maharashtra. In a sense they have greatly succeeded in polarising the Muslim community in these states and forcing them to adopt a different culture and abandoning the indigenous culture which has been created with centuries of linving together in the same place.

For all these hapless youth who are lured towards a life of fascist hatred in the name of serving the religion there is a very misconstrued sense of history created by saying that the Muslims and Christians have damaged the Hindu religion and the land of the Hindus. I wonder what they are talking about. Is this the Dravidian land of the Hindus or the Indo-Aryan Hindu land of Hindus? When these fundamentalist Hindu forces neither refuse to acknowledge Hindus ate beef as a regular meal nor prove that theory wrong, the claim for the Hindu land is a little far fetched. For all the Muslim bashing Praveen Togadia (General Secretary of the VHP a.k.a Fascist Number 1) has indulged in against the fundamentalist propaganda and religious conversions propagated by those Muslims (VHP and RSS often refer to other religions as them, like referring to a dreaded disease or the taxman) these very organisations use the same methods in different ways and get them validated by using the BJP to make it seem like a quasi –government authority. What is being practiced is the philosophy of hatred in the name of God at both campaigns against the people. I mean for all the efforts put in by these leaders, may it be Hindu or Muslim, the casualties are people on the street (who probably care more from where the next meal in going to come rather than which religious ideology to subscribe to). The result of all this though is that the Hindus and Muslims do not trust each other in spite of sharing a cultural background (forced or otherwise) during the near 900 years of Muslim rule over India.

The Indian Muslim (and our many Pakistani counterparts) have a unique identity (though many will disagree) and a rich heritage which has contributed generously the arts, architecture and societal functions in general across the subcontinent. Near nine centuries of living together has created many platforms for debate and has had a significant effect on the way religion is perceived in these vast and diverse lands. Though in the midst of all of this the cultural effect of the subcontinent on the various religions practiced here is explained as the non-Islamic and non-Hindu influences on the religion. As the Catholic Church and Pope in the Dark ages led to the birth of Protestantism so did the rise of Buddhism over the casteist Hindu high priests of that time, such events also had a cultural effect on the way Hinduism was understood. Not to forget the Bhakti movement which saw some of the greatest minds of both religions come together to practice Sufism and a common place of worship in the form of Dargahs (a new religion born out of the conglomeration of different cultures). Ruskhan writing couplets in praise of Krishna or Kabir propagating religious harmony through spirituality are some examples of that time (this is attributed more to the un-Islamic influence of the Hindus of Hindustan than the mix of cultures).

Nonetheless even this difference is unacceptable to the builders of the Hindu Rashtra and the subscribers to the Manusmriti (which ironically propagates the superiority of the caste system and is misogynist to say the least). There in lies the problem with the extreme right wing policies and right wing activists being practiced by these organisations in India, creating a hatred for Muslims and desecrating the culture (a generous mix of many) and grinding it to a pulp. Unfortunately these happen to be in the name of God, Hindus are second class citizens in Pakistan and there is no room for pseudo-secularism which makes the stand of the official state clear. This is not the case in India as Muslims have equal rights (and even a personal law board to adhere to religious sentiments) though this has seldom happened in matters related to Muslims versus the BJP government. So in order to survive in India a Muslim also has to be pseudo-secularist like the BJP members often are (how does one expect a impartial outlook towards any religion when indoctrinated with fascist beliefs as a part of religion all through life).

No wonder the Indian Mujahideen is operating in India against the RSS, VHP and the BJP’s fascist forces. The situation in India is akin to that of Nazi Germany as many a scholar has remarked when faced with the prospect of BJP led governments. What is happening in this fight though, is that the obvious culprits Narendra Modi (and the followers and propagators of his policy) along with L.K Advani get Z-Plus category security cover and unsurpassed political mileage to spread their philosophy of hatred along with their fascist policies but the people who suffer are the people of a nation who are paying dearly for all the mistrust. To quote Omar Abdullah in the Indian Parliament “The problem is poverty, lack of food and employment.”

Let the BJP first prove they care about anything other than hatred before propagating stricter laws against terrorism (read Muslim harassment legislation’s). This is not the United States or Christian Europe where slogans like “All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims” will work like a charm as the cultures are too intertwined to separate that easily on the name of religion. Though a partial amount of success has been achieved as there are forced cultural differences being created (like Urdu for the Muslims and Hindi for the Hindus, when Hindi as a pure language did not exist more than 70 years ago, it was all Hindustani a mix of Urdu, Hindi and Persian) lo and behold fascism has arrived. The choice is simple either the fascism is stopped or better bomb squads patrol and defuse bombs in every inhabitable inch.

ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School has been written by Pranay Rupani who is a Freelance Writer

Pranay Rupani
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/the-indian-mujahideen-the-answer-to-bjps-pseudosecularist-fascism-or-a-new-method-to-spread-unrest-506712.html

If you are atheist or agnostic please answer as well.

I’m Christian. The religion I relate to the most is Judaism. Because that is the religion which Our Lord Belonged to.

When I say positive, I speak of life, light, order, joy, etc.
Negative would be death, darkness, chaos, anger, etc.

What, if any, religion embraces and perhaps uses both of these concepts, be it in the nature of their gods, in practice, belief, etc?

Any Pagan or pantheism based religions?

Many forms of Wicca acknowledge that death, pain, and destruction exist and have their place in the natural order of things. We choose to focus (generally speaking) on life, pleasure, and creation. but are prepared to deal with the "negative" aspects of existence when necessary. There are times when pain teaches valuable lessons, and when it is necessary and good to bring things to an end, and when chaos is the breeding ground for creativity and inspiration.