MotorKat
Well-Known Member
Disclaimer: henceforth, the words I'm typing state my personal beliefs on some subjects people find touchy, and the logic behind why I believe them so. I'm fine with people disagreeing, just don't shove said disagreements down the throat of this blog (thought-provoking comments, on the other hand are quite welcome 
)
I'm one of those people who defines themselves as "spiritual". If you really wanted to try and tag a definition to what I'm closest to, it would be Deist (the belief that there IS an omniscient force above watching everything at hand. Whether its God, Allah, Brahma or the Three Tenors is not for me to determine). You could say that's a cop-out for a step above Agnosticism, but really it fits with how fascinating I find the ideals of each religion I run into and appreciate them. The mysticism, the rituals, the history, the variety of people you meet one-on-one is great. and the non-flame-tastic debates are the best!
Its just that for many religions, the organization of a community of people who believe in a similar fashion often leads to a sense of closed-mindedness that is solidified with larger numbers, and that disturbs me. Too much conflict and strife manifests when one group of people is mad at another just because they dressed the wrong way, or didn't understand the origin of a certain practice, the explanations to why. Some people are satisfied with the goodwill of the text or preacher they are hearing this from. But for the many who whether through logic or gut feelings don't like what a preacher is saying, that can alienate them from others who take the words as concrete and infallible. Does a holy text's statement about a particular topic have as much impact toward you as the process of scientific theory? That's why I don't associate myself with the Catholic church anymore, even if I do agree with them on Some topics.
Now, because of the way some religions treat others differently, I'm all for the separation of State and Church (government and religious institutions). For things that originated from religion, such as marriage, let the institution and hierarchy from said institution deal with the technicalities. It is Their choice if policies from time long ago should stay the same or update to accommodate for the modern member of that religion. But for State and government, when their policies apply to ALL people regardless of religion, their equivalent of what religion calls a marriage (Civil Union) should be the determining factor for whether one person is legally bound to another and acknowledged as so. Yes, some governments inevitably merge State and Church to be one entity, but that often turns out horribly for the populous of said area.
"Humans are given the ability of free will; utilize that to validate and take responsibility for your personal beliefs and actions."
I hope that for those of you who read this blog that it really pauses your thoughts and makes you reconsider WHY.
)I'm one of those people who defines themselves as "spiritual". If you really wanted to try and tag a definition to what I'm closest to, it would be Deist (the belief that there IS an omniscient force above watching everything at hand. Whether its God, Allah, Brahma or the Three Tenors is not for me to determine). You could say that's a cop-out for a step above Agnosticism, but really it fits with how fascinating I find the ideals of each religion I run into and appreciate them. The mysticism, the rituals, the history, the variety of people you meet one-on-one is great. and the non-flame-tastic debates are the best!
Its just that for many religions, the organization of a community of people who believe in a similar fashion often leads to a sense of closed-mindedness that is solidified with larger numbers, and that disturbs me. Too much conflict and strife manifests when one group of people is mad at another just because they dressed the wrong way, or didn't understand the origin of a certain practice, the explanations to why. Some people are satisfied with the goodwill of the text or preacher they are hearing this from. But for the many who whether through logic or gut feelings don't like what a preacher is saying, that can alienate them from others who take the words as concrete and infallible. Does a holy text's statement about a particular topic have as much impact toward you as the process of scientific theory? That's why I don't associate myself with the Catholic church anymore, even if I do agree with them on Some topics.
Now, because of the way some religions treat others differently, I'm all for the separation of State and Church (government and religious institutions). For things that originated from religion, such as marriage, let the institution and hierarchy from said institution deal with the technicalities. It is Their choice if policies from time long ago should stay the same or update to accommodate for the modern member of that religion. But for State and government, when their policies apply to ALL people regardless of religion, their equivalent of what religion calls a marriage (Civil Union) should be the determining factor for whether one person is legally bound to another and acknowledged as so. Yes, some governments inevitably merge State and Church to be one entity, but that often turns out horribly for the populous of said area.
"Humans are given the ability of free will; utilize that to validate and take responsibility for your personal beliefs and actions."
I hope that for those of you who read this blog that it really pauses your thoughts and makes you reconsider WHY.
I do also find irritating the assumption that just because someone is atheist one also assumes they believe in scientific process. Nah... someone can still believe in Unicorns and Faeries and be an Atheist at the same time.