More Religion Needed in Canada

[Ramesh]

Perhaps it might be time to get back to our religious roots and involve more religion in government and in schools. It seems that the antireligion people have contributed to the ills our Canadian society now faces. The big problem is that the atheist do not see that their beliefs are religion too and they are forcing them upon people. They do not see themselves as hateful, but they do spread hate. They use science to prove their points. But according to science, religious belief contributes to less costs to the government and better society.

Publishings by Harold Koenig, Michael McCullough, and David Larson in 2001 prove that religious people have lower rates of suicide, drug abuse, juvenille crime, divorce, and longer healthy lives. They survive longer after heart surgery than non-relious. They have less stress and there illnesses like stroke and cancer. Outher study says that faithful people are happier, have less disabilities, and contribute more volunteer time to society.

Just think if we taught our children more about religion how much money society would save in crime, health, and other costs.

antireligious people cost much to society. For instance those people who worship the earth and animals more than people. Like the people who forced the world to ban DDT. This kills 2 million people a year. Far more than terrorists or other religious fights.

[Riverwind]

Publishings by Harold Koenig, Michael McCullough, and David Larson in 2001 prove that religious people have lower rates of suicide, drug abuse, juvenille crime, divorce, and longer healthy lives.  They survive longer after heart surgery than non-relious.  They have less stress and there illnesses like stroke and cancer.  Outher study says that faithful people are happier, have less disabilities, and contribute more volunteer time to society.

'Religious' is the wrong word. The benefits you associate above with religion come from 'spirituality' which roughly means a belief in a higher power. It is important to make a distinction between these two because spirituality does not come with a bunch of dogma based on old books written for a society that does not exist anymore.

If you further analyzed the results of the studies you would probably find the people that were only 'religious' (i.e. only interest in religious dogma and symbols of their faith) did not receive the benefits you claim, however, the truely 'spiritual' (i.e. cared about their relationship with their high power) did receive the benefits.

Talking about spirtituality, ethics and morals has a place in schools. Religion most definately does not.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Perhaps it might be time to get back to our religious roots and involve more religion in government and in schools.

Yeah, right. WHICH religion(s). And how do you select?

It seems that the antireligion people have contributed to the ills our Canadian society now faces.

Can you give even ONE real example? I doubt it.

The big problem is that the atheist do not see that their beliefs are religion too and they are forcing them upon people. 

Please support that allegation, if you can.

They do not see themselves as hateful, but they do spread hate.

It's pretty hateful to say people are hateful who are not hateful.

They use science to prove their points.

Oh no! Not that. Shame on them.

[GostHacked]

Just think if we taught our children more about religion how much money society would save in crime, health, and other costs. 

antireligious people cost much to society.  For instance those people who worship the earth and animals more than people.  Like the people who forced the world to ban DDT.  This kills 2 million people a year.  Far more than terrorists or other religious fights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Costing too much to society? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? And you do realize WHY DDT was banned. If that stuff kills of plant and animal life in short term, over long term use, plants and animals will die and well you know how the food chain works right? We would be in alot more trouble. So this ends up costing more. And you cannot look at just the monetary costs.

I agree with Sparhawk on the spirituality kick. I think being ignorant and stupid costs us more than all that other shit combined. I am an atheist/agnostic person. You are being way to general in your accusations, but I will let that slide for now.I am willing to sit down and talk about religion with you but as an atheist/agnostic, I do not feel the need to throw my views down your throat. I am however learning and teaching myself about spirituality, and how I can use them to better my life. Harmony with your environment. That can only be self taught, but you can get guidance from outside.

I do see the benifits of being in a large like minded group. It has the benefits of a large base of support. But religion is a guide through life, not a way of life itself. Take what you feel is of value and use it to help you out.

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

[geoffrey]

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice the essential difference in these two comments, everyone. Gosthacked asserts individual liberty, while Geoffery insists on imposing social control.

[Riverwind]

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

I was raised in a Catholic family so I know many devoted Catholics quite well. I have noticed there are three distinct groups within the church:

1) The Reglious: people who are focused entirely on the dogma and the pronouncements of the Pope. These people constantly judge everyone else's moral character based on how the other people follow the 'word of god'.

2) The Socialites: people who don't care much for God but see the church as a community club.

3) The Spiritual: people who are focused entirely on their relationship with god and their faith. These people rarely talk about church dogma and generally have only a passing interest in what the Pope says.

Only people in group 1) are concerned about issues like birth control, SSM and abortion. People in group 3) may profess opposition to these thing but do not feel that they have to join a crusade to get rid of them.

Being around people in group 3) is inspiring even to someone that does not share their faith because you can see their faith gives them a sense of strength and inner peace.

Being around people in group 1) is like listening to someone scrap their nails on the chalkboard because they have no real faith: just a belief that if they follow the church rules they will go to heaven.

So, my point it. People who are religious should never assume:

1) They speak for all church going people.

2) That people who do not go church do not have any belief in God

[The Terrible Sweal]

An excellent analysis, Sparhawk. I notice that it tends to be people in group 1 who have the most difficulty with the separation of church and state. Indeed, they are most likely to complain that this separation (which protects them the most) is an infringement of their rights!

[GostHacked]

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you fan of equal rights? Does your religion teach you tolerance. Do you reside in a 'live let live' attitude? Please just stop spewing this without any evidence. Religion is a personal choice. But, even when you choose the wrong religion, you get smacked by the others who, a) don't understand your religion, think it is all black and white, and forgets to see the colours in between. c) if you are not a 'insert jew, catholic, christian, buddhist, monk, muslim' you are not worth my time. So damned if you do, damned if you don't.

http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=187

"Hansard - Civil Marriage Act (C-38) debate - Gilles Duceppe (Bloc)

Quoted from the bill on that page :

"This bill does not legislate matters of the church or religion. It is clear that this bill does not interfere in any way in religious rites or practice. This bill will not require religious communities to marry same sex partners. We must therefore agree that this bill does not, in any way, take anything away from the various forms of worship in Quebec and Canada"

So how does this hurt you or your religious ways?

That is pretty horrible for a religion to impose all those restricitions on a people, but yet still say they are for equal rights and tolerance towards others that are different.

http://www.middleastwomen.org/html/multi.htm I mean in no way to pick on the Muslim community, but this scares me. This cannot happen.

How does the line in the prayer go? "Give me the strenght to accept what I cannot change" You cannot change a gay person, nor an athiest. They have to change, and that is only if they want to.

Wonder how the religious people took it when females where allowed to vote. What blasphemy that would have been. Chaos and dissorder.

More on the women's rights to vote.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/browseSubjects/womenRights.asp

http://www2.worldbook.com/features/whm/html/whm010.html

I could assume, that back in those days, the same shit would have been spewed from the religious groups. Claiming it will destroy things and society. Go ahead an just try to take a woman's right to vote away. I dare you.

Religion needs to stay out of government.

[Melanie_]

Perhaps it might be time to get back to our religious roots and involve more religion in government and in schools. 

There are churches, synagogues, temples and mosques throughout Canada. Anyone who chooses to worship in whatever style suits them best is free to do so. The beauty of having freedom of religion is that each religion (theoretically) is equal to the others, and none are given more credence than the others. Involving religion in schools and politics, however, would mean we have to decide which competing view needs to be given more weight; it compromises freedom of religion to do so. Politics and education need to be secular in order to protect people's right to worship as they choose, or to choose not to worship at all.

[cybercoma]

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice the essential difference in these two comments, everyone. Gosthacked asserts individual liberty, while Geoffery insists on imposing social control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gosthacked doesn't assert liberty whatsoever!

Gosthacked is trying to suppress religious belief which is a blatant denial of liberty.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Keep your religion away from me please, I do not want to become infected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice the essential difference in these two comments, everyone. Gosthacked asserts individual liberty, while Geoffery insists on imposing social control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gosthacked doesn't assert liberty whatsoever!

Gosthacked is trying to suppress religious belief which is a blatant denial of liberty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So rants every religious fanatic bent on advancing hir cause. But NEVER is any evidence of such suppression or imposition forthcoming. Maybe this time?

Please answer this question: What specifically does GH advocate which qualifies as 'suppression'?

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting points Ramesh. Although we have to walk a fine line, I think it would be benefitial to teach kids in school about world religions and how they have benefitted humanity. And I agree, the greens (religious beliefs) kill people every day. They care more about 'the African spotted Vulcher' than they do about 40 million Africans people dieing every year from malaria, dengue fever, sleeping sickness, river blindness, shistosomaisis etc. etc. etc.

[Melanie_]

And I agree, the greens (religious beliefs) kill people every day.  They care more about 'the African spotted Vulcher' than they do about 40 million Africans people dieing every year from malaria, dengue fever, sleeping sickness, river blindness, shistosomaisis etc. etc. etc.

That's a very bold statement, IMR. Are you saying there are no humanitarian values outside of organized religion? Athiests, agnostics, and those who choose to keep their spirituality a personal matter are just as capable of having a social conscience as any church goer, and often spend a great deal of effort fighting for human rights both at home (same sex marriage) and abroad.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Are you saying there are no humanitarian values outside of organized religion?

No, I think he is on about an article that appeared in the National comPost the other day claiming that environmentalists were responsible for more deaths than Nazis and Stalinists.

Of course, the article was nonsense, as it promotes that all too typical right wing mindset... "this extreme or this extreme. there is nothing in between."

[GostHacked]

(rehash the other ones)

Gosthacked doesn't assert liberty whatsoever!

Gosthacked is trying to suppress religious belief which is a blatant denial of liberty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you feel I am suppressing your religious beliefs, this would be all in your head. I hope to hell this is not a troll. If so, it is a sad one at best.

You can beleive in whatever you want. Seperation of church and state means just that. If you had religious law entering into mainstream society again (which I am glad it is not) you would find more oppsosition to it from all walks of life. You know that we have taken out the Lord's Prayer in our public shool system back in (I cannot seem to find exactly when) the 80's I think.

One question before I continue with things here.

What religion where you proposing to put back into government? And why?

[I miss Reagan]

That's a very bold statement, IMR. Are you saying there are no humanitarian values outside of organized religion? Athiests, agnostics, and those who choose to keep their spirituality a personal matter are just as capable of having a social conscience as any church goer, and often spend a great deal of effort fighting for human rights both at home (same sex marriage) and abroad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I implied no such thing. In fact my best friends are agnostics who have no interest in religion. They are fantastic people, better than many religious types I've come in contact with. People are people. This is what makes me so angry about the intolerant leftists on this web site who judge 'evangelicals' or any other religious group and mock their beliefs. It's incredibly hypocritical and offensive.

[Melanie_]

And I agree, the greens (religious beliefs) kill people every day.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps you could expand on this a bit, though, as I obviously took it differently then you meant.

[err]

Will strong religious beliefs bring a more moral government... I think not. George Bush thinks God speaks to him. Christian evangalists visit him at the Whitehouse every Monday... He goes to church regularly....

But his good Christian morals allow him to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis... for oil... Is that the kind of Christian morals we should push for in our government...

How about we elect politicians whose fiscal policies, social programs, law-making, etc... will benefit the most Canadians, independent of religion... and leave religion to the truly religious....

[GostHacked]

Will strong religious beliefs bring a more moral government... (cut)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder why this thread died? I have been watching it for about a week now. I was hoping for something solid from the religious folks. Nothing to back the idea of more religion in government. Nothing.

So I guess there is no use for religion in governemt. Or there would be more talk about it in this thread.

[willy]

Gosthacked,

Churches should not be in government and government should not be in churches but what do we mean when we say more religious beliefs in government.

Say my religion preached:

Caring for each other

Helping the marginalized

Being good stewards of our wealth and environment

Be transparent and honest.

Would it be okay to bring this religious belief into government?

It turns out that many humanists might believe in these things as well.

People of faith should run for government and so should others who believe that it is a noble profession to serve the public. That is why we elect representative to serve us and deal with the problems that we face collectively. Those that enter the political arena with that in mind should be encouraged.

[GostHacked]

Say my religion preached:

Caring for each other

Helping the marginalized

Being good stewards of our wealth and environment

Be transparent and honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should not need religion in government to have these morals in place. You just need good people. Sure bring your valid religious values to to the table, but not your beliefs in the religion. Some things can apply, but again common sense would be the big key here. And our government just does not have common sense.

[willy]

but not your beliefs in the religion.

Clearify what you mean by this. In a practical way what does it look like.

[GostHacked]

but not your beliefs in the religion.

Clearify what you mean by this. In a practical way what does it look like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beliefs in a religion, like being a Christian, Catholic, Jew, Muslim. Sure good old moral values are needed in govermnet, but we need to maintain the seperation of church and state. Also those morals have to reflect the society of today. If you are a religious person and a person in power, you cannot let your religious beleifs interfere with the daily workings of the government. This cannot be done for God or whatever. Do it for the people. Once you start letting your religious beleifs (like being against abortion and gay rights ect) you are no longer a politician. You then become a preacher. I don't want preachers in office. I want people who will do the right thing for the whole of the country .You can't please all of the people all of the time. Religion also teaches people to accept the things they cannot change. Like not being able to change my view on religion and my choice not to subscribe to any of them.. Just like you cannot change the fag or the dyke. They are that way cause they want to be that way. No amount of religion and hounding will change them. So let them be. Stop treating them like second class citizens. Also, I see religions being pitted against each other for the most part. Christians are better than Jews, Muslims are more purer than Catholics ect. Get any one of these factions in government again and it will be biased towards that one religion. Other religions will want a peice of the pie as well. So leave all religions at the door and bring good society moral values to the table. Ones that will help us all instead of hampering.

NO religion in government can lead to the equality of all people across Canada.

Religion is good for people in general, but it does not work for everyone. And since there are so many different religious groups these days, who's religious morals/values do you put into government? One religion gets in and then it becomes a tool to oppress the other religions that want to make their voice heard.

Religion is also a private matter. Religion is a choice by the individual and should not be forced upon anyone. And the choice of religion is up to the person. So this may be my argument. Religion is a private matter and government is a public matter.

Again, bring your morals that will work with society as a whole, just don't do it in the name of God, do it in the name of our Country.

I hope that clears it up .. I really wish I had payed more attention in English class in high school, my writting and thoughts would be clearer.

[willy]

Religion also teaches people to accept the things they cannot change.

No it doesn't.

Once you start letting your religious beleifs (like being against abortion and gay rights ect) you are no longer a politician.

How about family rights and the rights of children? One does not need to be religious to want to reduce the number of abortions in this country and to protect the ideal that the nuclear family represents for child rearing.

Who is a judge of the good person? You or me.

Politicians should be honest about their values and how they apply them to governing. Then we all get to choose.

You are inconsistent. You state religious views should be kept quiet and yet gay rights activists and pro choice activists should speak out. None of us should be in the closet. The debate should be respectful, but it should be in the open.