Of gods and language.

[Enrique]

Religion will be the subject. I expect this does not hurt someone's person's sensibility.

In a time that boasts that tabus have been eradicated , as free talk on sexual matters shows, a surprising note is the use of euphemisms to refer to the divinity or total abstention from mentioning it. But the social behaviour regarding that matter is biased by another note: the mutual respect we show to others opinions. In a world so vastly populated, we must regard with respect what other people think and feels, lest we engage in dangerous quarrels. I once read that the exquisite delicacy with which Chinese treat each other is due to overpopulation. Little frictions can have great effects.

So, mentioning my god in public, can offend the others religion believes. And we see people from other creeds so frequently that caution seems a good rule. Besides the fact someone in my family can be deeply pious and I could offend him by only mentioning God's name --I wonder if every religion has a general name for
God, like us. We do not really use a proper noun for Him.

We are every day more polite, specially men, so it's not odd swearing is not frequently used. But what happens with the most frequently used swear in any modern western language: "by God!". I see it so little used in the forums I frequent that I am forced to ask. But even looking into the whole Internet such a formula I can't see it mentioned, save for dictionaries. There seems to be a tabu about religious matters notwithstanding our freethinking way of life.

It is not me who is going to unveil this mystery, but one timid hypothesis is: the US is the country which more consistently and strongly has influenced the West in the last hundred years. I won't say it's a country of puritans, like I heard in a picture by Woody Allen last night though the pilgrim fathers certainly were, . But, tell me, in Italy, a country that has seen dozens of civilizations on their soil they are much more liberal minded than in the States. Its influence in everything touching common life can't be denied, from the Coca-cola to the wearing of jeans. But nations live in proximity more than at any other time in history and proximity, as I was saying, generates courtesy in order to survive. So, this is another variable in the equation, which in itself must be very complex. I felt like talking.

[Enrique]

Hello Enrique - the situation you describe may well be the case in Argentina, but I can assure you the opposite is true here in the UK and I imagine this is also true of the US -just watch the lamentable Jerry Springer show (I hasten to add I do not!!) As to forums, haven't you seen the hideous 'OMG' which emits from every teenager's mouth twice in one sentence?

How are you doing? I live in the end of the world and I live on a cloud. I only see I can't see a picture on TV without it being impossible to understand some scenes where bad word are uttered. Because I tell you, they --I don't know who, erases each and everyone from the sound track and the sentences are therefor uninteligible. Which says anglo-saxons are use dirty speech too much or that censorship is very active locally in the media. So I don't know the worldly uses, except for literature and the theater which, like always, give the (bad) example.

But I confess I was rather speaking about this and other respectable forum I won't name, for it's very noticeable how sober they are in the use of the name I discussed. Maybe the swearing in the name of the divinity is demode (if I swear I do it on Neptune's beard, let he pardon me). But there is a very sober speech here on the forum, of course, and that is the determining fact, I assume. The OMG sounds familiar.

[Enrique]

Yes, religion is a dangerous subject. I has unleashed many wars. So why speak of it in the internet, where so many people get in touch. My excuse is the real point was grammatical.

[Harvey]

It is too bad that people get so uptight about mentioning God in public. Also, the word "god" means many things to various peoples. And some think that Allah is the god of the Muslums, but I have heard that Allah is a general term just as when a westerner says God, and that Christians in the middle east use the term Allah to mean their god. I wish people could not get so uptight about it, as everyone has the right to believe what they will, and nobody should be forced to believe contrary to their conscience.

In western culture it was an unwritten rule that you don't talk about sex, religion, or politics in mixed company because these topics were controversial. But now in modern times it seems that only religion and politics are not to be talked about, thought that is not even true. In all three (sex, religion, and politics) one is encouraged to talk about them but only in the politically correct manner, which excludes certain rational viewpoints because politically correct does not equal truth.

[Enrique]

In western culture it was an unwritten rule that you don't talk about sex, religion, or politics in mixed company because these topics were controversial. But now in modern times it seems that only religion and politics are not to be talked about, [...]

That's right! I see you got the point. Here's a joke: Sinbad is riding on the back of a flying man. The man warns Synbad not to mention the name of God. Sinbad was afraid up there in the sky, for fear of falling down. When finally they're about to land, he exclaims: "Allah is great and Muhammad is his prophet!" and they, both the man and Sinbad go calamitously down to ground!

[Albert Gans]

I find it amazing that for centuries it was fine to torture and kill blasphemers, heathens, believers of other faiths.... and that even now that is something that happens in some countries. The few atheist countries that have gone anywhere near discriminating against religions are now considered rogue and intolerant (take North Korea, just as an example).

The intolerance of some faiths has had to be tolerated for centuries, while if one dares say a wrong word about god, it is still frowned upon by many people.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of having to apologise for not believing in some superior being guiding our lives. If people want to believe so, then that's fine by me. If, however, they decide that people with other views should be discriminated against, I get very stroppy.

Very often, I make my views clear on this and I generally feel that it is mainly institutionalised religion that is what is really at heart of the problems with religions. It is not so much that believe in a higher being, buyt much more about the fact that religions are then turned into sources of (abuse of) power. A lot of those institutions or organisations linked to them have been the greatest criminal organisations around in history. I am deliberately not naming any particular one, you just take your pick. And what is worse even, to my mind, is that a lot of these institutions remain in position of both political and moral power in society, despite that history. Nazism is frowned upon (quite rightly) by most, but religious 'authorities' across the globe still are regarded in high esteem in many places, despite a long history of crimes against humanity at large.

I get very angry about that.

[Peter]

I find it amazing that for centuries it was fine to torture and kill blasphemers, heathens, believers of other faiths.... and that even now that is something that happens in some countries. The few atheist countries that have gone anywhere near discriminating against religions are now considered rogue and intolerant (take North Korea, just as an example).

The intolerance of some faiths has had to be tolerated for centuries, while if one dares say a wrong word about god, it is still frowned upon by many people.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of having to apologise for not believing in some superior being guiding our lives. If people want to believe so, then that's fine by me. If, however, they decide that people with other views should be discriminated against, I get very stroppy.

Very often, I make my views clear on this and I generally feel that it is mainly institutionalised religion that is what is really at heart of the problems with religions. It is not so much that believe in a higher being, buyt much more about the fact that religions are then turned into sources of (abuse of) power. A lot of those institutions or organisations linked to them have been the greatest criminal organisations around in history. I am deliberately not naming any particular one, you just take your pick. And what is worse even, to my mind, is that a lot of these institutions remain in position of both political and moral power in society, despite that history. Nazism is frowned upon (quite rightly) by most, but religious 'authorities' across the globe still are regarded in high esteem in many places, despite a long history of crimes against humanity at large.

I get very angry about that.

Of course it's right to be angry at corruption, abuses of power and the injustices of the past. However these things occur in all institutions - atheist regimes such as Nazism and Communism have produced some of the world's greatest atrocities - in other words where ever human beings are involved there is corruption. When it comes to religion, it is easy to find fault and condemn all religion, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater - but this approach is too simplistic and ignores the core values of religions. Religious leaders have made attempts to apologise for the horrors and mistakes of the past - if only politicians would be as willing!

At the heart of the 10 commandments of the Jewish faith is 'Thou shalt not kill' and for Christians this was reinforced by Christ's commandment to love one another which is extended into compassion for the sick and the poor. That people have ignored this and perverted the teachings is the fault of weak human beings, many as you point out who are or have been in religious organisations. Much good work is done by very brave people, often in dangerous situations in order to live lives faithfully helping people through their own sacrifices. If everyone lived their lives according to the true values at the heart of most religions, love, kindness and compassion, the world would be a better place. As it is we live in very secular times but we see a widening of the gap between rich and poor, an increase in violence and selfishness, and a society that places very little value on human life but worships materialism.

[Albert Gans]

Dear Peter,

As said, I have nothing against people believing in some superior being. What I loathe is that institutions such as the Catholic Church, which has been a party to many major crimes in history, from the inquisition over condoning rape and murder in the Middle Ages (Crusades and persecuting Jews), to the participation in slavery to more recently ignoring the ill-treatment of children, and which maintains a tradition of discrimination against women, still claim to hold the moral high ground. This does not just go for the Catholic Church, but also to Jewish religious leaders, who claim they can decree who is Jewish and who is not, or to some Ayatollahs, who make fatwahs over issues they have nothing more intelligent to say than you or me. The only difference is that they hold power.

The big difference with Stalinism and Nazism, as I mentioned, is that these institutions continue to be very powerful and even respected (by many, not me) in society. Stalinism and Nazism have been referred to the rubbish bin of history, which is where they belong. Mainframe society no longer takes them seriously. But if some archbishop/rabbi/imam raises a finger and uses arguments from holy scripts to make his (rarely her) case, than a lot of people, unfortunately, still listen.

This does not take away from what you say with regard to individuals within these institutions, who have indeed helped many people and have done good deeds.

One final point: don't call me names, don't get personal, I was not in the points I was making either. I am not narrow-minded, because I do not share your views. You are entitled to your opinions as much as I am and I do respect those. I just don't share them in this area, as opposed to our common views on Beethoven !

Kindest,

Albert

[RobertH]

I read this thread with interest, and speaking as a catholic.
If I could put it like this, both sides of the road, the committed and the uncommitted, have valuable insights.
No instititution could have been around as long as the Church without picking up what might be called travel stains. Human beings still have human nature and being 'religious' (whatever that might mean) is certain to result in greater temptations and greater efforts needed to fight against the downward pull of what was always called 'the world, the flesh and the devil.'
The point I would like to stress from the cultural point of view - and this site is dedicated to one of the greatest of artists of all time , something we can all agree on I'm sure. On the cultural side, the Church would say that it is an ark for preserving the highest achievements of western culture, whether you happen to be a believer or not, it has preserved the deposit of not just faith but also the arts, culture, and so on.
If all sides could at least agree on its positive cultural role that would be a good thing.
It was always said in the classical world - and the Church took over this idea - that you have to think of a three fold hierachy. At the top is the supernatural - how do we relate to belief, or not as the case may be. Next in importance is the political - how do we govern ourselves, who takes the decisions. Finally, important but at the bottom the economic - how do we earn our bread. Modern society has inverted this pyramid - and put the economic above everything else - is it any wonder we're all messed?

[Peter]

Dear Peter,

As said, I have nothing against people believing in some superior being. What I loathe is that institutions such as the Catholic Church, which has been a party to many major crimes in history, from the inquisition over condoning rape and murder in the Middle Ages (Crusades and persecuting Jews), to the participation in slavery to more recently ignoring the ill-treatment of children, and which maintains a tradition of discrimination against women, still claim to hold the moral high ground. This does not just go for the Catholic Church, but also to Jewish religious leaders, who claim they can decree who is Jewish and who is not, or to some Ayatollahs, who make fatwahs over issues they have nothing more intelligent to say than you or me. The only difference is that they hold power.

The big difference with Stalinism and Nazism, as I mentioned, is that these institutions continue to be very powerful and even respected (by many, not me) in society. Stalinism and Nazism have been referred to the rubbish bin of history, which is where they belong. Mainframe society no longer takes them seriously. But if some archbishop/rabbi/imam raises a finger and uses arguments from holy scripts to make his (rarely her) case, than a lot of people, unfortunately, still listen.

This does not take away from what you say with regard to individuals within these institutions, who have indeed helped many people and have done good deeds.

One final point: don't call me names, don't get personal, I was not in the points I was making either. I am not narrow-minded, because I do not share your views. You are entitled to your opinions as much as I am and I do respect those. I just don't share them in this area, as opposed to our common views on Beethoven !

Kindest,

Albert

I also respect and understand your views though this isn't the right forum for us to be discussing such delicate matters, but I felt a response to the points raised was needed. With respect I don't think I was calling you names or getting personal, that was certainly not my intention and I apologise if that is how it seemed to you. My point about a wholesale condemnation of religion being too simplistic was general as I doubt that you would condemn teachers for example in the same way despite them having amongst the highest rates of child abuse that you specifically refer to.

[AeolianHarp]

I find it amazing that for centuries it was fine to torture and kill blasphemers, heathens, believers of other faiths.... and that even now that is something that happens in some countries. The few atheist countries that have gone anywhere near discriminating against religions are now considered rogue and intolerant (take North Korea, just as an example).

They have swung the pendulum the other way.

The intolerance of some faiths has had to be tolerated for centuries, while if one dares say a wrong word about god, it is still frowned upon by many people.

Indeed it is.I usually find evangelical Christians to be the worst offenders in this case. There are some that have microphones shouting hell fire in my city centre.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of having to apologise for not believing in some superior being guiding our lives. If people want to believe so, then that's fine by me. If, however, they decide that people with other views should be discriminated against, I get very stroppy.

Yes, I am not happy about that either. The Co op bank ended one fundie group's banking with them here in Britian a few years ago, as they were openly homophobic.

Very often, I make my views clear on this and I generally feel that it is mainly institutionalised religion that is what is really at heart of the problems with religions. It is not so much that believe in a higher being, but much more about the fact that religions are then turned into sources of (abuse of) power. A lot of those institutions or organisations linked to them have been the greatest criminal organisations around in history. I am deliberately not naming any particular one, you just take your pick. And what is worse even, to my mind, is that a lot of these institutions remain in position of both political and moral power in society, despite that history. Nazism is frowned upon (quite rightly) by most, but religious 'authorities' across the globe still are regarded in high esteem in many places, despite a long history of crimes against humanity at large.

I get very angry about that.

Yes, it is a problem.

[AeolianHarp]

I read this thread with interest, and speaking as a catholic.
If I could put it like this, both sides of the road, the committed and the uncommitted, have valuable insights.
No instititution could have been around as long as the Church without picking up what might be called travel stains. Human beings still have human nature and being 'religious' (whatever that might mean) is certain to result in greater temptations and greater efforts needed to fight against the downward pull of what was always called 'the world, the flesh and the devil.'
The point I would like to stress from the cultural point of view - and this site is dedicated to one of the greatest of artists of all time , something we can all agree on I'm sure. On the cultural side, the Church would say that it is an ark for preserving the highest achievements of western culture, whether you happen to be a believer or not, it has preserved the deposit of not just faith but also the arts, culture, and so on.
If all sides could at least agree on its positive cultural role that would be a good thing.
It was always said in the classical world - and the Church took over this idea - that you have to think of a three fold hierachy. At the top is the supernatural - how do we relate to belief, or not as the case may be. Next in importance is the political - how do we govern ourselves, who takes the decisions. Finally, important but at the bottom the economic - how do we earn our bread. Modern society has inverted this pyramid - and put the economic above everything else - is it any wonder we're all messed?

Thoughtful post Robert.

[Peter]

I read this thread with interest, and speaking as a catholic.
If I could put it like this, both sides of the road, the committed and the uncommitted, have valuable insights.
No instititution could have been around as long as the Church without picking up what might be called travel stains. Human beings still have human nature and being 'religious' (whatever that might mean) is certain to result in greater temptations and greater efforts needed to fight against the downward pull of what was always called 'the world, the flesh and the devil.'
The point I would like to stress from the cultural point of view - and this site is dedicated to one of the greatest of artists of all time , something we can all agree on I'm sure. On the cultural side, the Church would say that it is an ark for preserving the highest achievements of western culture, whether you happen to be a believer or not, it has preserved the deposit of not just faith but also the arts, culture, and so on.
If all sides could at least agree on its positive cultural role that would be a good thing.
It was always said in the classical world - and the Church took over this idea - that you have to think of a three fold hierachy. At the top is the supernatural - how do we relate to belief, or not as the case may be. Next in importance is the political - how do we govern ourselves, who takes the decisions. Finally, important but at the bottom the economic - how do we earn our bread. Modern society has inverted this pyramid - and put the economic above everything else - is it any wonder we're all messed?

Thank you Robert for that - I think the problem for a lot of people who are not religious is that when they look at religious institutions they expect perfection and then come down extra hard when they see that they are dealing with human beings with the same flaws that we all have. Thus the message is lost - 'Love one another'. Peace!

[Albert Gans]

Dear Peter,

Apologies accepted. In reply to a further post on this issue: of course, it is the case that institutions (religious and others) consist of people and thus are flawed. What I object to is their pretention that they hold all the wisdom and threaten the wrath of god over people (enough to scare quite a lot of them), if they do not agree with their position, or worse, actually don't wait for the wrath of god, but actually do it themselves.

I hold the Catholic Church at least co-responsible for the millions of deaths of AIDS-sufferers, of the death of many women who have had, have and will abort in back-streets and unsanitary conditions and so on. As I hold some Ayatollahs responsible for what has led to the killings of many innocents, or Jewish and Islamicextremists responsible for the impossibility to get out of the vicious circle of violence in the Middle East and indeed beyond there (we had a cretin killing people in Brussels probably in this context). All in the name of a god.

Do not forget that one can pick and choose from the holy scriptures: turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye?

I am indeed unforgiving for institutions that have been responsible for so much damage in the world and then their representatives still come on TV and tell us how to behave. As if they have a proven record of being right more than me. People have been gobbling this rubbish up for far too long.

Albert

[RobertH]

The problem with this line of arguement is this. It assumes, indeed presumes that people in Africa or Asia or wherever are simply mindless automata in two respects. First it assumes they have no free choice in their own lives, a line of thought that the church has always said no matter how miserable somebodies circumstances are is just plain wrong.
Secondly, it assumes that the church has this unimaginable power over people so that what is says in each and every case always goes. This is just simply nonesense and takes no account of the complexities of human beings and their conditions and you realize that the churches power, such that it is, is only advisory and many people choose to ignore that advice.
The other point of course, is if we are talking about Africa, many of the countries their are riven by civil war, and how people can imagine when there is not even an effective government that the Vatican is somehow governing these people is bonkers!