Beheading in France

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:I was baptized as an infant, told the stories of Jesus on mom's lap while being read to. I did the Sunday School and confirmation bit and attended Lutheran college and seminary. Then I spent 40 years in the ministry of the church. I am grateful for all of it. I've had a good life surrounded by loving people who encouraged me to care about others and be open to and curious about the world around me.

My point still stands, you weren't given a choice.

If someone came dragging an adult into a church, and there where no way for you to communicate with that person, would you baptize that person even if you don't know his or hers wishes?

Now replace the word adult with infant.

Your concerns are somewhat mirrored in the Baptist heritage who postpone Baptism until adulthood.

What I am going to say next usually gets me in trouble with people who don't embrace faith. But that's ok, I guess. Faith is not a matter of intellectual choice. It is more a matter of seeing and hearing, of perception. Augustine made the comment, I believe in order to perceive. Children can experience that as well as adults. Rather than being something thought through, it is experienced as it is revealed. In introducing their children to that, they are giving them a precious gift to strengthen and guide them through life.

To turn your comment back the other way, would you wait until the so called age of reason to start teaching your children how to set priorities and make value judgments and choices? Would you wait that long to give them a moral compass? The truth is, kids are having choices made for them all the time. In fact they learn far more from our example than from what we deliberately try to teach them.

Don

-

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:I was baptized as an infant, told the stories of Jesus on mom's lap while being read to. I did the Sunday School and confirmation bit and attended Lutheran college and seminary. Then I spent 40 years in the ministry of the church. I am grateful for all of it. I've had a good life surrounded by loving people who encouraged me to care about others and be open to and curious about the world around me.

My point still stands, you weren't given a choice.

If someone came dragging an adult into a church, and there where no way for you to communicate with that person, would you baptize that person even if you don't know his or hers wishes?

Now replace the word adult with infant.

n7axw wrote:Your concerns are somewhat mirrored in the Baptist heritage who postpone Baptism until adulthood.

What I am going to say next usually gets me in trouble with people who don't embrace faith. But that's ok, I guess. Faith is not a matter of intellectual choice. It is more a matter of seeing and hearing, of perception. Agustine made the comment, I believe in order to perceive. Children can experience that as well as adults. Rather than being something thought through, it is experienced as it is revealed. In introducing their children to that, they are giving them a precious gift to strengthen and guide them through life.

Faith is a personal choice. It's a choice that only a consenting adult should make.

Children can't distinguish between fact and obvious fiction before the age of 5, and it takes almost another decade to refine that sense so it's almost comparable to an adults.

What you are describing is that children with religious parents and upbringing becomes religious. That has nothing to do with religion but what you expose the children to. Children will emulate what they see and experience during their upbringing,

n7axw wrote:To turn your comment back the other way, would you wait until the so called age of reason to start teaching your children how to set priorities and make value judgments and choices? Would you wait that long to give them a moral compass? The truth is, kids are having choices made for them all the time. In fact they learn far more from our example than from what we deliberately try to teach them.

Don

-

You can teach children a moral compass, to be kind and compassionate, to fight for the weak, to help the helpless and to be tolerant. All without religion, because religion doesn't have a monopoly on those things.

Joat42 wrote:
You can teach children a moral compass, to be kind and compassionate, to fight for the weak, to help the helpless and to be tolerant. All without religion, because religion doesn't have a monopoly on those things.

No religion does not have a monopoly on these things. But when you look at the broad scope of things, by the time you consider Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest, religion is the path through which these things have been cultivated much if not most of the time. That is because for the faithful, faith is is far more the air we breathe than a doctrine or creed. And if we breathe it, obviously enough, our kids will be breathing it with us. I, for one, have no apology to make for that. Christ's call to neighbor love is not an affirmation that man is the measure of all things. As Luther would put it, we must fear, love and trust in God above everything else. Love of neighbor flows from that.

I am not criticing your philosophy of life, your religion or lack thereof. Your journey deserves the same respect as my own. What I have done here flows out of my own journey, my convictions, my faith, which I think deserves the same respect I offer yours.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:
No religion does not have a monopoly on these things. But when you look at the broad scope of things, by the time you consider Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest, religion is the path through which these things have been cultivated much if not most of the time.

With all respect, but the fact that something is old, doesn't means that it is right or best.

Oh, it's just "brilliant". According to French press -

https://lenta.ru/tags/organizations/le-parisien/

- the teacher's killer was encouraged by Syrian terrorists.

Yeah, Syrian terrorists. Those terrorists, that Bashar al-Assad fought as a head of secular government. Which military bases France not long enough eagerly helped to bomb.

Seriously, how much more peoples should die before West would admit ever once that "Russia was right; we were wrong" - ?

n7axw wrote:No religion does not have a monopoly on these things. But when you look at the broad scope of things, by the time you consider Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest, religion is the path through which these things have been cultivated much if not most of the time.

But also intolerance, religious wars, ethnic cleansing, witch hunts and cultural stratification. Everything have bits that are good if you take them out of context. Let's take a very stark example, a commandant in the Einsatzgruppen during WWII could during the day perform wholesale murders on Polish Jews and during the night be a good father teaching his kids why it's wrong to kick puppies and that they should pray before bed. You need to judge things as a whole, not just the parts you find good.

So, no, I don't believe the concept of "goodness" was furthered because of religion, I think it was the opposite, goodness was furthered in spite of religion.

n7axw wrote:That is because for the faithful, faith is is far more the air we breathe than a doctrine or creed. And if we breathe it, obviously enough, our kids will be breathing it with us. I, for one, have no apology to make for that. Christ's call to neighbor love is not an affirmation that man is the measure of all things. As Luther would put it, we must fear, love and trust in God above everything else. Love of neighbor flows from that.

I am not criticing your philosophy of life, your religion or lack thereof. Your journey deserves the same respect as my own. What I have done here flows out of my own journey, my convictions, my faith, which I think deserves the same respect I offer yours.

Don
-

If you where steeped in those beliefs from your birth, it's no wonder you think as you do. We are after all mostly a product of our environment.

But you haven't really answered my original question so I'll rephrase it, do you believe it's right to force someone into a religious belief? And force in this context can mean that through your actions or inaction only leave one path open.

Joat42 wrote:

n7axw wrote:No religion does not have a monopoly on these things. But when you look at the broad scope of things, by the time you consider Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the rest, religion is the path through which these things have been cultivated much if not most of the time.

But also intolerance, religious wars, ethnic cleansing, witch hunts and cultural stratification. Everything have bits that are good if you take them out of context. Let's take a very stark example, a commandant in the Einsatzgruppen during WWII could during the day perform wholesale murders on Polish Jews and during the night be a good father teaching his kids why it's wrong to kick puppies and that they should pray before bed. You need to judge things as a whole, not just the parts you find good.

So, no, I don't believe the concept of "goodness" was furthered because of religion, I think it was the opposite, goodness was furthered in spite of religion.

n7axw wrote:That is because for the faithful, faith is is far more the air we breathe than a doctrine or creed. And if we breathe it, obviously enough, our kids will be breathing it with us. I, for one, have no apology to make for that. Christ's call to neighbor love is not an affirmation that man is the measure of all things. As Luther would put it, we must fear, love and trust in God above everything else. Love of neighbor flows from that.

I am not criticing your philosophy of life, your religion or lack thereof. Your journey deserves the same respect as my own. What I have done here flows out of my own journey, my convictions, my faith, which I think deserves the same respect I offer yours.

Don
-

If you where steeped in those beliefs from your birth, it's no wonder you think as you do. We are after all mostly a product of our environment.

But you haven't really answered my original question so I'll rephrase it, do you believe it's right to force someone into a religious belief? And force in this context can mean that through your actions or inaction only leave one path open.

No it is not right to force anyone into a belief. But what I am pointing out is that kids do choose. It's just that the choosing happens when they are able to do so. In fact it is recognized by ritual when kids are confirmed as they are asked if they believe the faith to which they have been introduced. And sometimes the choosing becomes less formal when kids simply stop showing up for church. Sometimes when they get a bit older, they come back. Sometimes they don't.

As for your other point, no one will ever have to convince a Lutheran about the power of sin in our lives, our world, or for that matter, the church, perhaps especially the church. All things mortal become corrupted. All of the stuff you mentioned is true.

But...

It's not the whole truth. After all of that is said and done, the call of Christ is still out there. It is the call to reconciliation with both God and our neighbor. It is the call away from self interest to the service of others. It is the call as Jesus put it to "follow me."

Has this ever worked out in practice? Yes. It was the church who was the glue holding things together after the fall of Rome. It was the church who carried not only religion, but brought civilization to our ancestors, built hospitals and other institutions of mercy, cradled learning, built colleges, universities, provided hospitality to travelers and much more.

So...

It ends up being a mixed bag by the time you combine your points and mine, doesn't it? So does it work? Yes. It works where honestly tried. In fact it is life transformational. Yet there is always a fragility to it. It is corrupted when people only pay lip service to it, when something twisted is taught, when someone uses it as a means for exercising power and control. It becomes corrupted when people know only the rules and creeds without embracing the spirit in which they are written. Not all religious belief is life affirming.

Don

-

Think of it as evolution in action.

France has again been the target of a terrorist attack. This one happened at a Basilica in Niece in southern France left 3 dead, one a woman who is reported to have been nearly beheaded.
That the attack was motivated by religious extremism, should be clear as the perpetrator; shot and wounded by police kept screaming “Allahu Akbar” (God is great!)
Followed shortly by an episode near Avignon, where a man; shouting the same phrase, was shot and killed by police, after threatening people with a pistol

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54729957

That France; probably the nation in Europe with the most rigorous legislation separating religion and state, is also the nation currently most afflicted with these nut-jobs probably is probably to be found in its large Muslim minority.
A large minority whose members; where even its fundamentalist adherents, are as abhorred by the actions of the tiny radical elements, as is the rest of greater population.
They fear they all will be stigmatized and tarred with the same brush.
That there are fundamentalist’s adherents in most religious creeds, that don’t equate them with religious terrorism!
But it does seem that it is the Islamic nut-jobs who are setting the agenda.
When fear and rage in the majority sets in, it might not differentiate!

Arol wrote:France has again been the target of a terrorist attack. This one happened at a Basilica in Niece in southern France left 3 dead, one a woman who is reported to have been nearly beheaded.
That the attack was motivated by religious extremism, should be clear as the perpetrator; shot and wounded by police kept screaming “Allahu Akbar” (God is great!)
Followed shortly by an episode near Avignon, where a man; shouting the same phrase, was shot and killed by police, after threatening people with a pistol

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54729957

That France; probably the nation in Europe with the most rigorous legislation separating religion and state, is also the nation currently most afflicted with these nut-jobs probably is probably to be found in its large Muslim minority.
A large minority whose members; where even its fundamentalist adherents, are as abhorred by the actions of the tiny radical elements, as is the rest of greater population.
They fear they all will be stigmatized and tarred with the same brush.
That there are fundamentalist’s adherents in most religious creeds, that don’t equate them with religious terrorism!
But it does seem that it is the Islamic nut-jobs who are setting the agenda.
When fear and rage in the majority sets in, it might not differentiate!

I don't know what has happened now under Trump, but back when Obama was running things, there was outreach to the Islamic community to try cooperate in identifying young people who had been radicalized on the internet. I don't know exactly what they were doing, but I understand they had some success with it. My mom always used to say when I was a young man, "now Don, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." I wonder if this or a similar principle might be at work here.

I wonder if France has been in to this sort of thing. If not, they probably should be.

Don

-