Here's another nine year old article [courtesy of my spring clean] from The Economist ~ a snapshot in time, as it were ~ commenting [in 2006] that America's foreign policy seemed strongly influenced by religion but that influence was much more complex than its critics supposed.
Some samples from the article:
Europeans worry that American foreign policy under George Bush is too influenced by religion. The “holy warriors” who hijacked the planes on September 11th reintroduced God into international affairs in the most dramatic of ways. It seems that George Bush is replying in kind, encouraging a clash of religions that could spell global catastrophe. [...]
Yet there are qualifications to this picture. First, Mr Bush has frequently crossed his religious supporters. In his enthusiasm for trade with China, he brushed aside evangelicals' worries about government persecutions of Christians. Rebuffing several powerful preachers, such as Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, he insists that Islam is a “religion of peace”. He makes a point of visiting Islamic religious centres (including a visit within a week of the September 11th attacks) and involving mosques in faith-based initiatives. [...]
Critics of America's “faith-based” foreign policy make two errors. They lump all religious Americans together into one mass, and then confound the lumping by quoting the wackiest people they can find. (Oddly, many of the worst lumpers are the first people to insist on the importance of distinguishing between radical and moderate Islam.) [...]
The second error is to overestimate the influence of religion on Americans' views of foreign policy. A succession of polls by the Pew Research Centre has shown that religion has little direct influence on the average American's views of foreign policy. In 2003 only 10% of Americans said that their religious beliefs shaped their opinions on the Iraq war. Americans consistently say that the media have more influence on their views of foreign policy than religion does.[...]
The whole article is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/7912626
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFYour question?
Here's another nine year old article [courtesy of my spring clean] from The Economist ~ a snapshot in time, as it were ~ commenting [in 2006] that America's foreign policy seemed strongly influenced by religion but that influence was much more complex than its critics supposed.
Some samples from the article:
Europeans worry that American foreign policy ...[text shortened]... n religion does.[...]
The whole article is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/7912626
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFI think you are confusing spirituality with politics. G. W. Bush's political and religious agenda notwithstanding.
Here's another nine year old article [courtesy of my spring clean] from The Economist ~ a snapshot in time, as it were ~ commenting [in 2006] that America's foreign policy seemed strongly influenced by religion but that influence was much more complex than its critics supposed.
Some samples from the article:
Europeans worry that American foreign pol ...[text shortened]... ligion does.[...]
The whole article is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/7912626
"The Church of God", otherwise known as the "Body of Christ", and its members, are not concerned with political agendas except as a byproduct of faith in God.
This world, and what happens in it, is not the battle ground for Christians. According to the clear teaching of scripture.
I think your post belongs in either the culture or debates forums, and not in this spirituality forum which is primarily concerned with the Truth as it is related to spiritual matters about the whole of life.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by FMFThis is how the post by FMF should have been written........(I have corrected it) so please re-read it.
Here's another nine year old article [courtesy of my spring clean] from The Economist ~ a snapshot in time, as it were ~ commenting [in 2006] that America's foreign policy seemed strongly influenced by religion but that influence was much more complex than its critics supposed.
Some samples from the article:
Europeans worry that American foreign pol ...[text shortened]... ligion does.[...]
The whole article is here:
http://www.economist.com/node/7912626
Here's another nine year old article [courtesy of my spring clean] from The Economist ~ a snapshot in time, as it were ~ commenting [in 2006] that America's foreign policy seemed strongly influenced by false religion but that influence was much more complex than its critics supposed.
Some samples from the article:
Europeans worry that American foreign policy under George Bush is too influenced by false religion. The “holy warriors” who hijacked the planes on September 11th reintroduced God into international affairs in the most dramatic of ways. It seems that George Bush is replying in kind, encouraging a clash of false religions that could spell global catastrophe. [...]
Yet there are qualifications to this picture. First, Mr Bush has frequently crossed his false religious supporters. In his enthusiasm for trade with China, he brushed aside evangelicals' worries about government persecutions of Christians. Rebuffing several powerful preachers, such as Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, he insists that Islam is a “false religion of peace”. He makes a point of visiting Islamic false religious centres (including a visit within a week of the September 11th attacks) and involving mosques in faith-based initiatives. [...]
Critics of America's “faith-based” foreign policy make two errors. They lump all false religious Americans together into one mass, and then confound the lumping by quoting the wackiest people they can find. (Oddly, many of the worst lumpers are the first people to insist on the importance of distinguishing between radical and moderate Islam.) [...]
The second error is to overestimate the influence of false religion on Americans' views of foreign policy. A succession of polls by the Pew Research Centre has shown that false religion has little direct influence on the average American's views of foreign policy. In 2003 only 10% of Americans said that their false religious beliefs shaped their opinions on the Iraq war. Americans consistently say that the media have more influence on their views of foreign policy than false religion does.[...]
DOESN'T,T IT MAKE MORE SENSE NOW.?
The whole article is here:
26 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357"Spirituality: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."
No they don't. This forum was created to separate them.
My impression as well. Yes, there was a thread here which referenced the separation several years ago.
Edit: Found it. "vistesd: February 6, 2012" Thread 145019 (Page 2)
______________________________________
"Many years ago, the Spirituality Forum was split off from Debates, in an effort to keep debate on every subject from being derailed by religionists—it was interesting that one of the most outspoken opponents of the split was an atheist (Doctor Scribbles) who thought it was an attempt to discriminate against those who brought their religious beliefs to the table.
With the Debates/Spirituality split, the Spirituality Forum also became the de facto philosophy forum, though some religionists have occasionally complained. However, I think it is impossible to talk about such things as theology and morality without philosophical underpinning (e.g., metaphysics and ethics, as well as epistemology); and a logical contradiction does not become less a contradiction because it is couched in religious language. I also do not take a narrow of view of the word “spirituality”, and fail to see why expressions of the “human spirit” ought to be out of bounds.
Then there are those traditions about which people argue whether to call them religions or philosophies, such as Zen Buddhism or Taoism (an argument that I have little interest in). Bbarr once argued that any attempt to understand “the ineffable Real” could be considered part of “spirituality”.
I think the great religious/philosophical divide is dualism versus nondualism, often expressed in terms of exclusivist formalism versus a non-exclusivism that can embrace various forms. Does my nondualism, or the fact that I view much religious language as metaphorical, symbolic, or aesthetic—along with my ability to find meaning therein, and to express myself sometimes in Zen koans, sometimes in Sufi poetry, sometimes in Christic symbolism, sometimes in neo-Hasidic kabbalah, sometimes in deductive inferences, etc., etc. (no matter how well or badly I do any of that!)—which of those things excludes me from “spirituality”? According to whose definition? Whose “orthodoxy”?
I think I would be opposed to the split. On the other hand, I participate so little here these days, that my opinion should probably be discounted.
___________________________________________
The following is especially for LemonJello, who will remember—
The great religions
are the ships,
poets the life boats.
Every sane person I know
has jumped overboard.
That is good for business,
isn’t it, Hafiz?
—The Sufi poet Hafiz (translated by Daniel Ladinsky)
So, is Hafiz being spiritual or philosophical?
Now I’m going to go and listen to some more roots reggae…"
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357In principle you are correct, but in practical terms the two forms are called "debates" which could be political, social, economic issues, some of which may impact religious elements of life; and "spirituality" which could be anything from comedic FSMs to Victorian ectoplasm ejections to church and state issues. My point being, there is no "politics" forum.
No they don't. This forum was created to separate them.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357Regardless of the motivation behind the creation of this forum, there are times when the topics unavoidably intersect, and some of us would like the chance to discuss them even if other people are not comfortable with 'political' topics.
No they don't. This forum was created to separate them.
I don't hew to tradition that does not make sense.
Originally posted by josephwI disagree.
Political topics don't belong in this forum.
Historically politicians have used religion like a used rubber. George Bush bragged that he would ride evangelicals into the Oval Office, and he did.
Bush and company went into Iraq because their religion is Progressivism, which is the pursuit of money and power. The Crusade is for oil and natural resources, and the goal is world wide influence and a new world order.
Bush, as Obama, had no interest in a war with Islam, even though there are those in Islam who are using Islam to fight them.
Religion and politics have forever been joined at the hip, but it is only when religion is used for political purposes that is becomes evil. God has no interest in world wide conquest or money and natural resources, that is, since he already owns all of it. 😛
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemReligion and politics are closely linked. Both have ideologies that cannot be proven, and as such require a certain measure of faith, and both tend to dictate how one lives their life.
Regardless of the motivation behind the creation of this forum, there are times when the topics unavoidably intersect, and some of us would like the chance to discuss them even if other people are not comfortable with 'political' topics.
I don't hew to tradition that does not make sense.
As such both have a tremendous amount of power and influence over peoples lives. In fact, people seem to crave one or the other. I find that those who have given up on religion have turned to politics in search of collective salvation through political activism, as where those who are religion turn to God. It is an innate need for a "Good Shepherd", so choose you Shepherd wisely. 😉
27 Jul 15
Originally posted by divegeesterReligion does not exist in a vacuum, nor does politics, science, or philosophy, etc. In fact, you could probably make an argument that there is an element of each in pretty much every human endeavor, depending on how you approach a given topic.
In principle you are correct, but in practical terms the two forms are called "debates" which could be political, social, economic issues, some of which may impact religious elements of life; and "spirituality" which could be anything from comedic FSMs to Victorian ectoplasm ejections to church and state issues. My point being, there is no "politics" forum.