BS: Starting a new religion

Subject: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:28 AM

I was discussing religion with a friend who lives in Europe last week and we were lamenting the state of conventional religions where we live. We are not really religiously inclined and in particular don't have much time for Christianity (given its history over the past two millennia), but feel that being members of a spiritual community would have many benefits, particularly at our present middle-aged state in life.

We have put together a rough plan to revive a religion of ancient Rome that became sidelined with the growth of Christianity.

Do any Catters have experience in this field, ie, pros and cons of starting a new religion, dealing with adherents, etc, or thoughts on the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:46 AM

I worship The Goddess of Food.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: jacqui.c
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:57 AM

Why revive an old religion, unless it holds real truths for you today?

Look inside yourselves and discover your own faith, based on your own knowledge and experience. No-one can take that away from you and the need to 'belong' tends, then, to dissipate.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:01 AM

To set the ball rolling, you need some martyrs. Obviously it would be inconvenient if you yourself were the martyr, so the first essential is recruiting a few followers from the simpler sections of society, and fire them up to march in a self-righteous fashion towards the seats of power. After a few years of this you should acquire quite a few more followers, and then you can start weeding out heretics, picking whichever method provides the most entertaining spectacle for the masses. After that, the sky's the limit.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: kendall
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:22 AM

The answer is inside yourself, not "out there" somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:26 AM

If there's no transcendent reality behind it, it's not religion -- it's a "club".

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:42 AM

I think I'm correct in saying that in the UK at least, religions have no formal status unless they are one of the established ones - the C of E and the C of S - perhaps the Church in Wales has some legal backing, but I don't know. Others are legally voluntary associations of various sorts, which may or may not be charities. So there's no formal way of setting up as a religion- otherwise the Jedi and the Pastafarians would have done so by now.

So it's quite easy. Get premises for a temple or two- an old bank should be ideal- and put an ad in the local rag for vestal virgins. You will however have to be licenced as an abattoir to carry out the animal sacrifices necessary for haruspicy, and the DEFRA gold- plating of the EC regulations might make this difficult.

I can't see the attraction of the Roman religion myself- far too many gods, not just the big guns but all those nymphs, satyrs, lares and penates, plus the occasional hazard of premature apotheosis. The Abrahamic variations only have one too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:50 AM

There are of course an infinite variety of routes you could pick, but they tend to divide historically into two main genres: self-righteousness, or booze/shagging/sacrifice. Take your pick. (It is possible to mix both angles in various subtle ways).

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Rasener
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:19 AM

Get yourself a hotel for the vestal virgins, especially if you go the route suggested by Greg of booze/shagging/sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:38 AM

In the US, you can start your own religion, and then line up to get handouts from the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:58 AM

Read Dianetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:51 AM

There are thousands of ways of starting a new religion! Investigate all the religions and cults and spiritual groups around and you will see that.

But the most common way that it happens is through the charismatic leadership or obvious mental brilliance of one person, around whom gather a lot of other people. Good ideas and philosophies are not usually enough in themselves. You need that one person who inspires others to the extent that they wish to be around him or her and they wish to learn from him or her.

That is how a new religion (or a new group within an existing religious tradition) almost always starts.

Those kind of charismatic people run the gamut, by the way, from the very best people to the very worst! You have to have good powers of observation to determine which kind you are dealing with.

One more observation: You do not NEED a "new religion" in order to pursue an individually satisfying and meaningful spiritual life. Why not simply find the central most valuable things that are embodied in pretty well ALL the religions and knit them into your own personal philosophy, and approach it that way? If you want to pray, pray. You don't have to belong to a "religion" in order to pray. If you want to meditate or contemplate, do it. You don't need to belong to a "religion" to do those either. If there is a God or a transcendent intelligence of some kind....do you think he (or she) (or it) belongs to (or is attached to) a specific organized religion????

I sure don't! ;-) Be free as you were meant to be. Be attached to NOTHING. Be owned by NOTHING. That's my view on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:02 AM

transcendent reality - now there's a phrase to play with. Can anybody demonstrate a "transcendent reality" in any religion, and also demonstrate that it's absent in some other soi- disant religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:03 AM

Guest, Eutopia, my child. This is the Blessed Son of the Holy Light and I am here to answer your prayers. Our religion is based on having faith in numbers. If two wrongs don't make a right, we will try three.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:22 AM

Sounds like Eutopia described the Universalist Unitarians pretty clearly in that first post.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:31 AM

Just what the world needs .... another religion.

Geesh.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:32 AM

Evangelicals don't seem to realize that their branch of cult Christianity that included being born again and the rapturous vanishing of true believers before the end times was started by a guy in England about 100 years ago.
The issues they/Evangelicals have chosen to champion like anti abortion and the destruction of homosexuals are more a hybrid of Republicanism and the late preacher who attacked Tinky Winky.




(the names have been removed to help society forget the greedy hate filled preachers.)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:35 AM

But the most common way that it happens is through the charismatic leadership or obvious mental brilliance of one person, around whom gather a lot of other people. Good ideas and philosophies are not usually enough in themselves. You need that one person who inspires others to the extent that they wish to be around him or her and they wish to learn from him or her.

That is how a new religion (or a new group within an existing religious tradition) almost always starts.


Well and good. But if you probe a bit further, Little Hawk will also advise against trying to start a new religion using the 'Cat as a seed-bed. God knows he's tried. He has written scintillatingly brilliant epistles on spirituality, morals, higher truths revealed in ordinary events, the karma of politics, the nature of metaphysical knowledge, the relationship of the individual to the infinite, how reincarnation works. He even developed a really nifty cross-platform Karma Debit Calculator using C++ and Java code which works for most major moral codes and calculates the probability of your ending up as a broke-dick mammalucca wannabe based on inputs describing your virtues and your sins from the last three lifetimes.

Despite all of this heroic effort, he has not gained a single aspirant willing to follow where he leads. No apostles, no fishers of men or women, nada, zip, pfft. This in spite of many years of earnest endeavour and blindingly bright spiritual insight. He just doesn't understand it. Neither do I, unless perhaps he has some kind of karmic aethereal halitosis.

So, by all means, choose one of your number to start drumming up support and infecting the world with yet another set of unworkable but deeply comforting mind viruses. It's really what the world needs. I suggest you build it on strong principles, action-oriented, real-world dynamic engagement kinda thing, that involve throwing yourself in front of endangered species such as whales, sharks, and polar bears.

If that doesn't work, you and Little Hawk might consider a joint vacation over at the Neil Young Center for the Terminally Screwed, a fine institution dedicated to spiritual restoration and better bedpans, founded here at the Mudcat by Doctor Spaw Patterson. Guaranteed to cure what ails you, IF you get to them soon enough and truly want to get better.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:57 AM

Look, God damn it. I'm tryin' to get this guy into my new religion. Stay on topic here!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:19 PM

To hell with transcendent reality...

What we really need is a translucent reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:23 PM

LOL!!!!!!! That first post of yours, Amos, was the damned well funniest thing I have seen from you in some time. Bravo!

Look, man, I don't want any adherents. No! What I want is equal brothers and sisters. I desire no pecking order, no hierarchy, and no followers. All I desire is complete equality.

As for miracles... I think everything's a miracle. But the things one has been exposed to a lot just seem ordinary after a few times, that's all. So you completely forget that they are miracles!

Remember the first time that you kissed someone you loved? Or the first time that you saw the sun rise over the ocean? Or the first time that you bit into a fresh raspberry? Miracles, each and every one. We are inundated in miracles every day of our lives, but he who is asleep takes no notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Darowyn
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:56 PM

You should look up "Nova Roma." Classical religion is revived already.
They would not agree with any ideas of equality though. The main interest of the organisers seems to be in setting themselves up as an aristocracy, and electing each other to the magistracy.

Nova Roma
Cheers
Dave
Alias "Davinius Faber" for a few days!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:07 PM

Fu#k the lot of you, then.

From the Church of the Binary Way.

We are either open or closed. There is NO in between.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, I BET they wouldn't agree with any ideas of equality. No thanks, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:17 PM

Shane would like to start a new religion too. He would like to be its reigning God. Its sacraments would be drinking beer, smoking dope, and having tawdry sexual liasons with large numbers of loose and very silly women...all of them with large "bazongas", of course. That goes without saying, eh?

Shane has been trying to found such a religion ever since about age 14, but no one wants to worship him for some reason. Nevertheless, he perserveres in his dream.

Everyone needs a dream to live for, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Fr. Peter O'Foyle
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:17 PM

"being members of a spiritual community would have many benefits, particularly at our present middle-aged state in life."

I know just what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:39 PM

Thanks for the contributions. Some of these ideas were discussed last week with my friend, who has spent years researching ancient Roman/Greek cultures (hence the idea of starting a modern version of what I believe was a monotheistic religion in Roman times, although my friend is not averse to having more than one higher being).

Starting from scratch would mean we are not weighed down with the baggage of history, doctrinal disputes, heresies, etc. We can write our own prayers, design our own temple, make recommendations for lifestyle, etc. I think martyrdom might be a bit extreme at this stage, but we'll make provision for it in our doctrine.

It would be nice to have a charismatic leader whose brilliance would immediately attract thousands to the community, but finding one might be time-consuming, and I don't know how much s/he might charge--funds will be low at the beginning, until we arrange tithes, etc. Anyway, we don't want to lose the run of ourselves--we need to have a nice temple or two before the masses beat a path to the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:51 PM

Heh! ;-) You're pulling our collective legs with this thread, aren't you?

Make a religion with about 87,000 rigid rules and restrictions about dress, hairstyle, diet, and every form of behaviour. Make it mandatory to do 999 different formal things every day to get into heaven. You will attract all the most anal-retentive types who are making people's life a living hell in other religions, and this will be of great benefit to mainstream humanity and to religion in general. Then you can then all move to Texas, drive out the locals, and create an Earthly paradise there which the rest of us will know well enough to avoid. Very handy for all concerned.

See if you can get Tom Cruise to convert.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 04:05 PM

Speaking of that, does anyone understand what Scientology is all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:12 PM

I have a slight knowledge of it. They have a device a bit like a lie detector that is used to monitor your nervous system, so to speak. An interviewer (not the term they would use) sits down with you and asks you all kinds of questions about all kinds of aspects of your life. If a question hits a subject that causes you stress, the reading will spike on the machine. The interviewer will then go deeper into that subject. The purpose is to get you to a point (through many such sessions) where you are no longer carrying hidden inner stress about whatever it is that was causing you stress. You can call it a form of pschoanalysis, I suppose...

When nothing raises stress anymore to cause the machine to spike, you are said to be "clear"....meaning you've gotten rid of all your hidden emotional crap that is inhibiting you and getting in the way of you living a fully effective life.

In a general sense scientologists seem to place great emphasis on positive thinking, dressing well, being well organized and well educated, and showing professional comportment in every way. They place great emphasis on effectively pursuing a career and having a good work ethic and strong self-discipline...plus strong social morality, law-abiding habits, etc...

The religion stems from books written by L. Ron Hubbard...a pretty odd character. Look it up on Google.

Scientologists are very goal and work-oriented. They do NOT approve of people leaving the fold...nor do they approve of any criticism of scientology. They view themselves as the cutting edge of humanity's future society...and they view the remainder of society as pretty much lost.

And those are just my superficial observations, based on the slight knowledge I have of it. Fragmentary knowledge, I assure you.

Like I said, look it up on Google and read all about it.

It does not in any way attract me, although I'm sure it suits some people to a "T". I don't like belonging to groups if I can help it. I have my own unique way of being, and no group will entirely let me be according to my own way of being, therefore I do not attach myself to groups very willingly. I resist dogma and am skeptical of rule-makers and hierarchies of every sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:11 PM

Rig:

There are two very different facets--well, three, actually--to the subject.

The organizational culture is kind of bonkers, in many respects. Some of the attitudes and dramatizations described by LH are in this category.

The fundamental axioms and assertions about human nature are quite clear and incisive and people who bother to sort them out find them very useful.

The clinical corpus, which only holds a faint resemblance to LH's description above, is in itself an interesting study, if you're interested in psychology, and is a blend of spiritual principles something similar to parts of Buddhism, and clinical approaches something akin to Rogerian client-centered therapy.

In general people subscribing to the subject are oriented toward bringing about optimum survival not only for individual lives but for families, groups, other species and forms of life, and life in the material and other universes at large as they may encounter them. ALthough they are a spiritual study, fundamentally, they are not theistic, leaving the topic of God to be discovered by the individual for himself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:27 PM

"Sounds like Eutopia described the Universalist Unitarians pretty clearly in that first post."

naaw...the religion which Christianity ruined in Rome was
Mithraism....with Ahura Mazda as a major figure. When Constantine converted, Ahura got the short stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 29 May 08 - 06:32 PM

"Ahura Mazda"

The car guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:00 PM

Mithraism was a very widespread religion prior to the rise of Christianity. It was when Rome decided to make Christianity the official state religion that the Christian era really began in earnest.

Scientology is interesting. It seems to excel in shaping highly motivated people in terms of developing their life skills and daily survival coping abilities, as Amos alluded to.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:13 PM

Re: Scientology: The people who one encounters in the news relative to this particular belief system are mostly Hollywood big-wigs. One would have to think there might be others, less successful, who might find themselves being "used" by the leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Bill D
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:13 PM

Scientology 'may' indeed get some folks to focus....but for it to get status as a religion has always bothered me. It has more scandals & problems than most organizations.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 29 May 08 - 07:22 PM

the religion which Christianity ruined in Rome was
Mithraism....with Ahura Mazda as a major figure.

It's true that the triumph of Christianity led to the demise of Mithraism, but this was not the Ahura Mazda religion (which was confined to Persia and points East), but a religion with the same name that developed much later (but before Christianity) in the Roman Empire. This religion revered Mithras, the Lord of the Universe, famous for his cloak of stars. It was particularly popular among the soldiers of the Empire, and its temples have been found in most places where the Romans had colonies, including London. A disadvantage (?) was that membership was restricted to males. Christianity copied several of its early tenets from this Mithraism, including the birthday of 25 December, the order of priests, baptism, parts of the sacrifice of the mass, etc.

Rest assured that we are not pulling anyone's leg about this. The idea of leaving the topic of God to be discovered by the individual himself, as mentioned above by Amos in relation to Scientology, is something that I must discuss with my friend shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 May 08 - 09:56 PM

I read some of the first articles that L. Ron Hubbard wrote on Dianetics in Analog Science Fiction, and then Hubbard's book Dianetics, likening the mind to a computer, and the idea of psychological problems coming from "engrams." The mind is sort of like a computer loaded with Windows XP. It works pretty good when you first get it, but pretty soon the operating system starts starts to scramble itself and it begins to drive you round the bend because its gone round the bend. Interesting premise with, perhaps, some merit. Auditing (tracking down engrams and getting rid of them--de-bugging) seems like psychotherapy with a different vocabulary.

Then, I guess L. Ron work up one morning and said, "I think I'll make myself a prophet," turned it into a religion, and called it "Scientology."

I found Dianetics pretty interesting and possibly worth further study, but when auditors started wearing dog collars and intoning genuine mumbo-jumbo, I figured it had gone off the rails and that was that.

Don Firth

P. S. Never met an "Operating Thetan." Met a few who claimed they were, but boy, were they screwed up people!!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:33 PM

One would have to think, not knowing any more than I know about all of this, that L. Ron Hubbard must have had something going for him, or how would all of this had taken off?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:50 PM

There were other reasons for the transition, Don. One was that Dianetics therapists were trained to look for earlier incidents if they were getting relief by running the person through the later ones. Great principle, works in practice, but they kept falling off the back end of this lifetime and dropping people into earlier lifetimes. This kind of rubbed the Board of the Research Foundation in Elizabeth the wrong way because they knew that woudl be a hard sell. So the board tried to suppress that aspect of the research work, much like the Council of Whoozis did with the Christian doctrinary meetings in--what was it--AD600 or something? ANyway, that was some of the melodrama in the background when Hubbard grabbed the copyrights and went to Phoenix and started Scientology, which gradually built up into its own subject.

Interesting fellow. Less so than his worshippers would have you think, but more so than the average bear.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:09 PM

All these people who start large movements (whether religious or political) have something going for them, Riginslinger. Otherwise they would never make their mark and no one would listen to them.

That doesn't mean what they're saying is necessarily right...but it does mean they are people of considerable ability and talent in some respects.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Slag
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:39 AM

L. Ron's problem is the, like so many others, he began believing his own press.

ALL RELIGION STEMS FROM OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) so if you want a religion there's lots to choose from. You want to create your own? The possibilities are endless. You want to, ahem, resurrect ancient FAILED religion? Who am I to object? I firmly believe in freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:45 AM

I think Ron got bored writing SF so he decided to invent a religion.

We were sitting on top of Scarfell Pike, England's highest mountain, on the day after the fells had been re-opened after the foot and mouth outbreak. Hundreds and hundreds of people were heading for Scarfell and the day had an amazing atmosphere.

My wife pointed to a man reading a black leather bound book. Look - he's reading the bible! And he was. I had never seen Wainwright's Guide to the Fells in a leather cover before.

It then struck me that we had the potential for new relgion:

1. A truly charismatic figure, well a bit anyway.
2. A Gospel - in several unique volumes and in widespread circulation.
3. Thousands and thousands of followers.
4. A sense of purpose and endless pilgrimage routes.
5. A discipline for life with sacrements - Mine's a pint of Black Sheep.
6. Special clothes for the converted.
7. A genuine Awe and Wonder at the natural world.
8. Some sense of persecution - those fools in red socks etc.
9. A growing collection of sacred songs - I'm a Rambler, Im a Rambler
10. Our Leader is now dead - that always helps.

OK 10 is enough - you are only allowed 10.

But Wainwright spent a lot of time wondering alone in the wilderness and I challenge any one not to find much "Truth and Inspiration" not forgetting "Awe and Wonder" in his "Guide to the Fells".

And the purpose of this religion?
Only those that read the Good Book - "Wainwright's Guide to the Fells" will find purpose and truth!

OK I am off to found my own thread

Cheers

Les
May your boots comfort your feet,
May your Goretex never leak
Although the path be long and winding
Awe and wonder you'll be finding

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 30 May 08 - 07:11 AM

Excellent, Les. Good luck in founding your thread.

Many religions from the Druids onwards have had a sacred mountain. Something to bear in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 May 08 - 08:54 AM

You need to be incredibly charismatic and overly dominating.

Oh, wait, no, that's how to start a cult.

(ducking and running for cover...)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: frogprince
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:04 AM

At the risk of treating this whole idea with a trace of seriousness:

Eutopia is one of the folks in the world who feel there is value in involvment in a defineable religion.

I would challenge anyone to come up with a structure of religious doctrine, containing anything which could affect people's lives in any positive way, which hasn't been covered by some of the myriad of religions already out there.

What possible legitimate reason does that leave for starting one more religion? Frankly, I see people who want to start new churches as people who personally want to be religious authorities, with a body of followers under their authority.

There is every indication that Jesus himself just intended to be a Jew, and contribute some thoughts about what it should mean to live as a Jew.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 10:06 AM

A sacred mountain? Why, there's a mountain of it here!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:18 AM

"What possible legitimate reason does that leave for starting one more religion?"

What if you could go back in a time machine and ask that same question of the founders of all the known religions, each in their own time? ;-)

It would make about as much sense to ask that question then as it does to ask it now. The basic challenges in human life, after all, are essentially the same now as they were then, aren't they? (Maturing, forming healthy relationships, finding purpose and happiness and a sense of meaning in your life, learning more about yourself, others, and the world in general, attaining some measure of wisdom, experiencing love...) Religion, like many other things in life, is simply a way in which people attempt to meet those basic challenges and to understand their place in life, and there will always be new ideas and fresh approaches springing forth in that sense, because the impetus to do so is reborn in each succeeding generation.

Mrrzy - "Cult" is a word people use to label any religion when they wish to really badmouth it and demonize it. It's sort of like calling a Black person a "n----r", only it hasn't yet become politically unacceptable to utter (or write out) the word "cult". It's also a bit like the word "cu - t"...another word that is considered impolite in most quarters, which is why I left the letter "n" out of it. What I mean by that is, it makes a short, blunt, rough expletive sound...a vibration which helps carry negative intent in an emotive sense if one wants to use it that way. The word "fuck" is another such word...very handy for delivering a quick auditory punch in the nose, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:27 AM

"What possible legitimate reason does that leave for starting one more religion?"

Well, I guess the same reason all the others had - only reason is not often part of the escapade.

Their is no evidence of:
a man in the sky who made everything
knows everything
can intervene in everything
especially if people 'Pray'

The sooner people own up to this the better.

Now, study the life and work of A Wainwright or you are all damned to a life with a good bit missing.

The Truth

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:30 AM

Yes, I remember the Jim Jones Religion back in the 1980's.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:40 AM

"a man in the sky who made everything
knows everything
can intervene in everything
especially if people 'Pray'"

That's a very primitive anthropomorphic concept found in some religions (specially the Big 3 from the Middle East) and a good many religious people, Les. But it's not the only known religious concept out there. There are many other ways of being religious.

Don Firth - Going by what you said about scientology, it doesn't sound like a God-centered religion at all to me. It sounds more like a human-centered creed or philosophy built around venerating a specific prophet (or idealogue) and his works and ideas, the prophet being L. Ron Hubbard. I guess you could call it a religion of a sort...but not one that is about "God", rather one that is about L. Ron Hubbard and his particular method of controlling one's actions and consciousness according to a certain discipline and dogma that he came up with.

There have been many such movements. They are veneration not of some transcendent truth itself, but rather of a specific human being who thinks he HAS that transcendent truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:46 AM

I would challenge anyone to come up with a structure of religious doctrine, containing anything which could affect people's lives in any positive way, which hasn't been covered by some of the myriad of religions already out there.


Easy. How about a religion that esopoused the best principles of rationalism, humanism, and undertook to explore the spitritual aspects of life without pushing any preconceptions down people's throats? IN other words, a religion that facilitated spiritual discovery without getting loopy?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:00 PM

YEAH!!! You got it, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:40 PM

Amos,

I am with you, well no I'm not really.

"rationalism, humanism, and undertook to explore the spitritual aspects of life without pushing any preconceptions"

rationalism excludes them all as far as I can see and "pushing any preconceptions" isn't that evangelism?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:42 PM

"Easy. How about a religion that esopoused the best principles of rationalism, humanism, and undertook to explore the spitritual aspects of life without pushing any preconceptions down people's throats? IN other words, a religion that facilitated spiritual discovery without getting loopy?"

But will it serve beaujolais as a sacrament?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:06 PM

Almost certainly!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:09 PM

OK. I'm in. Nothin' like a little bow-jolly.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:11 PM

Uh, one more question: will the church be conducting urine tests to see if people might have inhaled second-hand smoke quite by accident and completely unknown to that certain someone?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:13 PM

I just want to know that in the event anyone asks me about it . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:25 PM

Peace,
I suspect that the ritual inhaling of the smiley, smiley, hungry, hungry, giggle, giggle burning weed will be more or less compulsory!

Peace, Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Rationalism should not be confused with materialism.

For example, there is no material object in this world called "affinity", the emotion of comfort with other people, or liking for them, or lack thereof.

Yet all reports of "enlightened" states experienced by people in all practices report that in high spiritual states there is a strong sense of brothehrood and tolerance for others, an ability to see others' viewpoints clearly while still having one's own viewpoint, and so on.

It would not be rational to state that one's state of affinity is purely caused by the biochemistry of the body in light of these extreme differences in states report by people whose physical conditions seemt o have no comparable preceding changes.

It would be rational, I think, to note the correlation as reported and see if other reports tend to correlate accordingly and if one's "model" of such things accounts for this correlation, if found.

This is simple analysis. Engineers do it all the time, but they don't usually apply it to spiritual phenomena. Comparing, eliminating, weighing probabilities, and so on, sorting out the different vectors involved, weighing data for consistency, probability, reliability, etc. There is nothing in this which excludes humanism or compassion or spiritual issues. But it does exclude pre-judgement or categorization about spiritual entities and interpretations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:41 PM

Yeah, I'm up for Amos's religion. Sounds . . . reasonable.

But as far as Scientology is concerned, Little Hawk, I think there's a little more to Dianetics/Scientology than just L. Ron Hubbard wanting to control people.

He had hatched up an interesting approach to psychology. The idea of the analogy between the human mind and a computer may sound pretty simplistic, but Hubbard was working on it, and gradually developing it into something that, at the very least, merited a serious look. His research into the beneficial effects of "auditing" did seem to produce results with some people, and it was still very much in the experimentation and evaluation stage when, as I understand it, the Officially Ordained Establishment began trying to charge him and the people he was working with as "practicing psychiatry without a license," complete with legal implications.

More that one type of alternate health care approach (some of which have been declared sufficiently effective that insurance companies are now willing to pay for that kind of treatment) has had to joust with the Establishment (fearing and /or resenting competition) to establish their effectiveness and legitimacy.

I was told by a person involved in Dianetics that the decision to change the name to Scientology and declare it to be a religion was an effort to avoid persecution, and prosecution, by the Powers That Be so they could continue the research and experimentation without having to spend vast quantities of money duking it out in the courts.

It was some time later that it seemed to start believing its own smoke screen.

Someone else here may know a lot more about this that I do.

I knew a few people who were interested in Dianetics early on, and I was a bit curious myself, but not enough to get really involved. I was too busy in school at the time. My last contact with Dianetics was when I dropped in on the Scientology Center in Seattle about thirty-five years ago to see how far Dianetics had progressed (if it had progressed) and wound up talking to a young woman of about eighteen or nineteen (a certified auditor or whatever) dressed in black with a white collar, like a priest. She assured me that Dianetics was a good beginning, but it was outmoded, and that Scientology was indeed a religion. She made this assertion almost belligerently. Then, when she started to explain it all too me and I identified what she was saying as totally blithering balderdash that she didn't even believe herself, I pointedly looked at my watch, thanked her for her time, and fled the prmises.

Not all religions are God-centered. Nor, do I think, does a religion need to be, contrary to popular belief. Amos's outline above sounds good. But it raises the question:   where does religion leave off and philosopy begin?

I think that this question merits some serious discussion, so I just toss it out there.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:52 PM

All religions have an element of "this is just what we believe". That's where rationalism ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 01:55 PM

Well, considering the sacrament will be a mixture of bowjolly and growjolly, I'll come to church for that part.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:13 PM

Les:

Not in the one I am proposing. "THis what we think is the most proabble interpretation of the phenomena we have seen so far." would be about as close as you could get. The thing is, such an intelligent religion would incorporate changing its model according to new data if that data were verified.

THis is not something most religions go in for, partly because they so often derive their corpus from a single visionary or interpreter, whether it is Christ, Mohammed, the Pope, Yaweh, or Gautama Siddartha.

Thus they are gradually drawn into the logical error of reliance on authority -- the notion that who says something can make it more truthful.

While it is perfectly true that some observers are more reliable than others, the appeal to authority as such is a critical flaw in thinking. One among many others.

Another one is the appeal to precedent -- that something must be correct because all prior opinions support it. "We've always thought that way, so we shall continue to do so" is completely illogical unless you can specifically identify the assumptions and data onw hich you have "always" thought that way and on re-visiting them find them again to lead to the same rational conclusion.

Automatic thinking for its own sake is the kiss of death. There is entirely too much of it in the Waring Blender we call human existence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:35 PM

Amos,

Isn't this a definition of something else:

"THis what we think is the most probable interpretation of the phenomena we have seen so far."
Les

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:47 PM

I am not sure how to answer that, Les. It makes perfectly good sense to me to base an intelligent and dynamic religion on rational conclusions such as probability statements rather than absolute assertions about reality.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:51 PM

A doctor, an architect, and a computer scientist were arguing
about whose profession was the oldest. In the course of their
arguments, they got all the way back to the Garden of Eden, whereupon
the doctor said, "The medical profession is clearly the oldest, because
Eve was made from Adam's rib, as the story goes, and that was a simply
incredible surgical feat."
       The architect did not agree. He said, "But if you look at the
Garden itself, in the beginning there as chaos and void, and out of
that, the Garden and the world were created. So God must have been an
architect."
       The computer scientist, who had listened to all of this said,
"Yes, but where do you think the chaos came from?"

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:56 PM

OK. Les, can I be in charge of the sacraments?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:11 PM

Amos,

Isn't this a definition of something else:

"THis what we think is the most probable interpretation of the phenomena we have seen so far."

Sounds like Science to me.

Peace,

not sure about "in charge" could you go with person most likely to share ?

Cheers

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:23 PM

LOL

You got it, mano.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:54 PM

Well, the difference is that science tends to apply that method to material frames of reference only. It is only very recently that social science has begun posing questions like "does being generous feel good or aid individual survival?" and such. And even there, very few issues on the spiritual side of things have been even ventured, let alone examined rigorously.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:46 PM

Like, I just had one of the sacraments, man, and you really--does anyone have any jujubes?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:58 PM

OK. If I'm messin' up a serious thread, my apologies, eh. If not, like where are the jujubes, man?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:09 PM

Don Firth - Yes, I think you're right that Dianetics does merit a serious look. It's really quite interesting. Hubbard was probably onto some real stuff there, but I'm not so sure about how the organization itself has evolved in the wake of that. It seems to attract some rather fanatical types of people, like the young woman you describe.

Where does religion leave off and philosophy begin, you ask? There is no clear dividing line. Any religion that is worthwhile and valuable IS a living and flexible philosophy, and a pretty comprehensive one. The whole of Jesus' teachings as presented in the New Testament, for example, were a radical new philosophy of life that he presented in a very conservative and rigid society. It delighted many of his followers, but it scared hell out of the established Jewish Church of the time, so they had him executed for what was, in their terms, heresy.

Now, if you look at all the Vedic accounts of what Krishna presumably taught, he was teaching a philosophy also, and a very deep one.

If you look at all the Buddhist accounts of what Buddha taught, he was teaching a philosophy.

So was Lao-Tse. Taoism is a philosophy, and it's a stunningly beautiful philosophy.

Philosophy encourages people to think, and think freely. This is the positive side of the spiritual search, and it is the epitome of rationality. It is, to my mind, the highest form of being rational and seeking truth. It goes beyond the mere material questions (which are pretty bloody obvious) and asks the nonmaterial questions which are the real crux of life.

Rote religion (ceremonials, rules and regulations) encourages people NOT to think, but simply to imitate and obey. That is the negative side of the spiritual search, and it is the key reason why free thinkers tend to oppose organized religion. They assume that ALL religion is of that rote type, designed to stifle free thought.

That's not so. When religion is in the form of an inspired philosophy encouraging free thought then it is not concerned with ceremonials, rules or reguations at all! It is concerned with philosophy, and philosophy is the pursuit of free men, not slaves to someone else's chosen obsessions.

That's why I say that I'm spiritual, not religious. I am a free man who investigates every form of spiritual philosophy, but is a prisoner of no set of religious rules, ceremonies, or regulations. I have no religious label. I decide for myself what my values are...and they may change some at any time, given new understandings and new experiences. A person who cannot change is one who is as one already dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:00 PM

The three legs that philosophy stands on are Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.

Metaphysics examines the nature of reality. Much of science (perhaps all) falls under the heading of Metaphysics. Metaphysics asks the question, "What is the nature of reality, of existence?" "The Universe began with the Big Bang, which occurred 13 billion years ago, and it is still expanding." And "The earth is flat and it rests on the backs of four gigantic turtles." And "Reality is a vagrant thought in the mind of God." These are all Metaphysical statements.

Epistemology examines the nature of perception. How do we know what we know? What is the nature of knowledge itself? Aristotle says "Observe the world and think about it." The complexities of the scientific method (basically what Aristotle said). And "I know, because I had a Divine Revelation." These are Epistemological statements. Logic could be regarded as a subset of Epistemology.

Ethics examines the nature of behavior, both individual action and how people should act toward each other. Politics, for example, is applied ethics (Think about that!!). "Am I my brother's keeper?" And "Love thy neighbor." And "If they would rather die [than go to the poorhouse], they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." (Ebenezer Scrooge). These are statements of ethical positions.

Metaphysics asks "What is?
Epistemology asks "How do you know?"
Ethics asks, "What should we do about it?"

These are the questions that philosophers deal with. And any cohesive religion attempts to answer these questions. All too often, however, the Metaphysical position is based not on observation, but mythology, the Epistomological method is speculation or subjective revelation, and the Ethical positions are arbitrary.

I think we can do better than that. Someone once said, "God gave us brains. He intended that we should use them!"

Amen!

Also, a great philosophy teacher once said, "Everyone has a philosophy, whether he knows it or not. One really should know what one's philosphy is and then examine it carefully to see if it's valid. And if not, change it."


Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Nah, it's okay, Peace, man. Sacraments that get you to let go of he top of your head are irresistible and important.

LH, you are talking around the barn here. The core feature is (IMHO) that philosophy is the love of knowing and of knowledge (slightly different things) and the truest nature of the spirit is that it is the seat and author of knowing. Everything else is bunches of shuffled significance, decks of data, fusillades of information. But philosophy and religion join in the house of the Knower, who is Thou.


In which are many mansions.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:13 AM

please read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Is an excellent serious examination of religion and it is often very funny.

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 08 - 01:29 PM

Forget the jujubes. Anyone got some Sara Lee?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 01:46 PM

Don and Amos...I agree with both of you. ;-)

Long live the ongoing quest to understand...

What is?
How do we know that it is?
And what do we do about it?
And why?

Those are the great questions before us at all times.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Jeri
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:07 PM

Sarah Lee brownies... mmmmm!
Fill the pool with Cheetos and we can eat our way out, turning a holy orange (better than saffron robes, eh?) color on the way.

When I got my first set of dogtags, they asked what my religion was. I told them 'Zoroastrianism'. (Mazda's involved in that one). Some poor bastard had to stamp it in the metal.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:35 PM

Jeri:

You have a cruel streak in you, doncha??? LOL!!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:57 PM

I used to watch Zorro when I was young.

___
/
/
/
___

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:59 PM

That was Zorro on drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Jeri
Date: 31 May 08 - 03:06 PM

What about his aster?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:18 PM

You leave his sister outta this, or we'll get Zorroaster your ass.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:21 PM

Where I come from, harass is two words!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 05:26 PM

When I look at my behind I see that it is divided into two parts...

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 08 - 05:49 PM

Braggard.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 05:51 PM

Draggarb.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Slag
Date: 31 May 08 - 11:29 PM

Pretty good Don! That's a nice triune look at the Human experience. Those three legs together give a stable platform to a person. Faith without reason would allow one to believe in most anything and we see too much of that in this world today. Reason alone cannot guide us into appropriate behavior toward our fellow beings. Any action can be rationalized. A solid ethic must have a basis in reason and in faith, wherein reason may lack. And a heartful ethic must be central to a worthwhile faith. Does that sound circular? Why yes it does. So?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:45 AM

I still think you should give this one a chance:


AW

Cheers

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Peace
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:08 PM

Les: I opened your link only to be brought back to thia thread. And what popped into my head is a stanza from "The Gospel of Bob".

Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly,
It all seems so well timed.
An' here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Doc John
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:07 PM

There are two aspects: founding an actual new religion or founding a branch of an existing one. What defines a religion? Must there be a supreme being or beings? Buddhism doesn't seem to have one but Richard Dawkings regards this as a philosophy rather than a religion anyway; so it doesn't receive his wrath. If you are a member of a recognised religion there are all sort of advantages: you can claim many privilages and even obtain exemption from the criminal law which applies to the rest of us. Most people will accept your peculiarites if you are 'religious' which they would not if you were just, say, eccentric altho some will mock; this latter may seem an advantage to some as it somehow proves their beliefs. However in the UK mocking may become illegal anyway. There also appear to be some almostsemi-religions groups such as vegitarianism and the environmentalist. The Hell Angels are not a religious group according to the English courts as they regrettably failed to gain exemption from wearing crash helmets on motor bikes unlike a certain religious group. Carrying knives is another point: it's part of a Scots national dress and also part of a certain religions requirement; will one become illegal and not the other? So a religion can be tested in court.
As Our Ernie's Dad used to say: 'Daft I call it'.
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:59 PM

John Hardly -- please define "transcendent reality".

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:31 PM

I still have to read Dawkings. My friend and partner in this enterprise of starting a new religion started reading his book about two weeks ago (shortly before we decided to embark upon this project) and says he is quite entertaining. He has certainly scared the sh*t out of certain conservative members of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.

The religion, which we intend to call a Community, is loosely based on a figure revered over 2,000 years ago, but updated to take account of present-day needs and aspirations.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:31 AM

His book??? WHich one?? He's written ten at least.

Some of which are very long and a hard slog. But always intellligently written.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Eutopia
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 09:13 AM

Sorry, I meant to say his "latest" book, The God Delusion.

You're right, he has written about ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:26 PM

This will take you to my thread. It does look a lot like this one.

AW honest

Cheers

Les

Dawkins has written a few and most are a bit hard but excellent science. The God Delusion is a great read and quite funny

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:12 PM

100?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:42 PM

Eutopia, you mentioned an 'ancient Roman religion that was sidelined by Christianity' but you didn't say which one. Perhaps you were thinking of Mithraism, which involved sacrificing bulls in underground vaults (not sure how you'll get the bull down there, but evidently there must have been some way). Many of these underground vaults still pepper subterranean Rome (what an incredible city - centuries and centuries of people's dust, layer upon layer) and are discovered on occasion.

But you say you have discounted Christianity because of its history over 2,000 years. I doubt you were thinking of Mother Teresa, but pagan religions on closer inspection don't have much to recommend them either. For example, the druids of celtic times practised human sacrifice as some of their bloodthirsty gods demanded it. Similarly the Aztecs sacrificed humans, cutting their hearts from their lives bodies, the Assyrians sacrificed children to their god Moloch by throwing them onto an open fire, while the.... but that's enough already, don't want to turn you off when you're just getting set up!! ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:45 PM

You have also just reminded me of what Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology - books about Dianetics) is supposed to have said "If you want to make a million dollars, start a religion". You wouldn't have your eyes more on that million dollars, would you, perchance?

?-)

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:16 PM

In my experience, there is very little difference between religion and a cult. Most religions place humans in exalted positions as ministers, gurus, or other identifiable figureheads.
"New" religions are usually started by someone with a messianic view claiming a vision and
have the ability to galvanize followers.

There is no need for a new religion since there are so many failures accountable to the consistency or social edification by most of the leading ones and many of the smaller ones.

I believe that instead of starting a new religion, it would be better to teach people to
read books, turn off the TV, learn how to think for themselves, support rational science when it occurs, and refrain from forcing any views from religion onto someone else.
I am not in favor of evangelism in any form and I see it as a destructive force in society.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

Our "city", little more than a country town, has at least thirty churches. We've got Roman Catholic, all the historic protestant bodies, branches of all the historic protestant bodies, schisms of all the historic protestant bodies, Morman, Jehovah's Witness, 5 competing Baptist congregations, a whole slew of Pentacostal groups alone... Every time we turn around, someone is starting a new church in somebody's abandoned deer blind. Each new congregation is guaranteed to be provide the relevance for modern people that the ones established last year have lost...

Subject: RE: BS: Starting a new religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 06:54 PM

it would be better to teach people to read books, turn off the TV, learn how to think for themselves, support rational science when it occurs, and refrain from forcing any views from religion onto someone else.

Hear, hear, here!



A