Christianity has failed to…

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by coberst

Sympathy is instinctive and empathy is an act of will. Sympathy happens, like many other things; empathy requires will, imagination, and reason.

Empathy (like many words from the Greek) has recently been adopted in psychology, psychiatry and the social sciences, in a specific context.
The original meaning is very close to the word compassion (from the Latin) - feeling for and suffering with another. Having compassion is one of Christ's main teachings.
A lot of Christians do demonstrate compassion. The ones that don't shouldn't really call themselves Christians.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Empathy (like many words from the Greek) has recently been adopted in psychology, psychiatry and the social sciences, in a specific context.
The original meaning is very close to the word compassion (from the Latin) - feeling for and suffering with another. Having compassion is one of Christ's main teachings.
A lot of Christians do demonstrate compassion. The ones that don't shouldn't really call themselves Christians.

I think that it is important to be able to distinguish among the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Webster says empathy—the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it—the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experiencing of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Webster says sympathy—an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly the other.

Webster says compassion--sympathetic consciousness of other's distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

[Marshall]

Empathy was defined at the beginning of the tread, but it seems that we have made some assumptions beyond the given definition.

Empathy is understanding a different person’s beliefs, culture, perspective, etc., but does empathy also mean we must agree with these other perspectives?

Two plus two equals four in any grade school arithmetic class. Even if 90% of the students think two plus two equals three, the answer is still the same: two plus two equals four. Sure, the teacher can respect the students’ beliefs, perhaps they all came from a culture in which arithmetic was taught incorrectly, but that doesn’t mean the teacher has to agree with the students. On the contrary, the teacher is supposed to try to demonstrate to the students that the correct answer is in fact four. To take this general example a step further, what if someone was trying to make change for you but shorted you three hundred pounds of gold in the process. Empathy tries to understand how they could have made such a mistake, but it does not require that you simply let the mistake be made by agreeing with them.

The same is true for Christianity or any other religion. Empathy says that people must try to understand each other, but it does not mean they must agree.

[Cantando]

I think basic Christian teaching (compassion, love for one's neighbour including enemies, giving, self-sacrifice, etc) covers pretty well all of the moral compass, as far as I am concerned, and trying to impugn some kind of moral guilt for supposedly not practising some rather more recent psychological definitions of the word 'empathy' seems to me somewhat absurd.
Whether the churches and their members actually practise these teachings is down to them.

[Keith]

I see two major flaws with Christianity relative to the OP's topic:

(1) It effectively orders people to be good to each other.
(2) It backs up that order with fear (of eternal damnation).

#1 is the equivalent of a teacher telling two kids to "shake hands and make up". Sure, it puts a lid on the immediate dispute, but I'd be very, very surprised if it created genuine empathy between the two. Simmering resentment is more likely.

If #1 doesn't poison any hope of empathy, #2 does. Fear is a crappy, crappy motivator. It gets you to take action in the short term, but it's rarely quality action. And low-quality empathy's not very useful.

Moral rules are an attempt to substitute for genuine understanding and compassion. Think of them as recipes - they teach people to take certain actions to achieve a result.

But recipes will basically never train someone to be a chef. A chef has to understand and live the principles underlying food preparation. Recipes bypass those and go straight to the result. Moral rules do the same, with much the same lack of true understanding and flexibility.

The OP claims that Christianity has failed to teach empathy. As far as I can tell, he's right. There are demands for it, but no actual teaching. (And sadly, numerous counter-examples).

[Cantando]

I always find it a little saddening when some people, who have obviously been raised in Western society and have all the freedoms that go with – freedom to work, vote, follow their own religion and who have all the material comforts, then turn round and criticize Christianity (biting the hand that feeds it).
For all its faults, it has brought us to where we are today - able to live in comfort and say what we think, without fear of reprisals.

We are able to live our lives with freedom never seen before in other countries because of the self sacrifice of our parents, grandparents and all those who gave their lives so we could enjoy basic human rights.

How do you think you would you fare if you were living in a communist or other totalitarian regime, where your personal freedom was severely restricted? God help you if you lived in China and wanted to have a baby girl!

What an ungrateful, whingeing, whining generation we truly are!!

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I always find it a little saddening when some people, who have obviously been raised in Western society and have all the freedoms that go with – freedom to work, vote, follow their own religion and who have all the material comforts, then turn round and criticize Christianity (biting the hand that feeds it).
For all its faults, it has brought us to where we are today - able to live in comfort and say what we think, without fear of reprisals.

First how is Christianity "the hand that feeds" us? Last I checked I've had to fend for myself, and earn my own money without relying on anyone else.

Second, how is Christianity what brought to where we are today, and not technological advancement and mental evolution?

We are able to live our lives with freedom never seen before in other countries because of the self sacrifice of our parents, grandparents and all those who gave their lives so we could enjoy basic human rights.

How do you think you would you fare if you were living in a communist or other totalitarian regime, where your personal freedom was severely restricted? God help you if you lived in China and wanted to have a baby girl!

What an ungrateful, whingeing, whining generation we truly are!!

Again, what does this have to do with Christianity? You are referring to our rights and freedoms, but those rights came from our founding fathers, who founded this nation as a democratic republic. They did not found it based on a religion. The founding fathers were masons, and freedom of religion was one of their biggest beliefs. If anything, Christianity and other organized religions have held the people back for centuries. Look at all the technology we have, but we still aren't mentally advanced enough to use it properly. Instead of helping the world with it, we'd rather make millions and destroy each other along with our beautiful planet.

I'm not against Christianity or religion. I believe all religions should be allowed to practice where ever/however they want. What I am against is the organization of religion. Religion should be a personal thing and not something that's shoved down people's throats, by threats of burning in hell and other fear based control. That is what ruins the sacredness. The church is almost like a big business.

[seanner689]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I always find it a little saddening when some people, who have obviously been raised in Western society and have all the freedoms that go with – freedom to work, vote, follow their own religion and who have all the material comforts, then turn round and criticize Christianity (biting the hand that feeds it).
For all its faults, it has brought us to where we are today - able to live in comfort and say what we think, without fear of reprisals.

We are able to live our lives with freedom never seen before in other countries because of the self sacrifice of our parents, grandparents and all those who gave their lives so we could enjoy basic human rights.

How do you think you would you fare if you were living in a communist or other totalitarian regime, where your personal freedom was severely restricted? God help you if you lived in China and wanted to have a baby girl!

What an ungrateful, whingeing, whining generation we truly are!!

I don't agree with this logic at all. First of all, I don't understand how you contrast living in a christian society to living in a communist or totalitarian society? Can't a society be both totalitarian and Christian for example? Can't a society be non-christian AND non-communist?

Also, personal freedom in the states IS restricted based on Christian values. Look at gay marriage, for example. Gays are denied equal rights largely based on objections from Christian fundamentalists. Look at stem cell research. Christian lobby groups consider using these embryos to be comparable to murder, even though these embryos have 500 times less cells than the brain of a fly, and can still fuse together with other embryos and split apart. We even have a presidential candidate who has to repeatedly clarify that he is not a Muslim, since we all know that anyone who is non-Christian would never make a good President. Love thy (Christian) neighbour.

As a society, our religions are phased out and new ones are created as our view of the world changes. Otherwise, you could say "I can't believe you don't want to pray to the sun god! Look at all the prosperity he's given us over the last 1000 years! What an ungrateful, whingeing, whining generation we truly are!!". I think that religions may have some place in society, but I think that when religion enters the picture politically, it tends to close people's minds, because religions usually dictate a certain truth and are very defensive about anything that can alter that truth. For example, when Galileo proposed that the Earth rotates around the Sun, this idea was thought as blasphemous for Christians:

Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."

(from wiki)

I'd rather know that we don't know everything than think that all our current beliefs are the be all and end all of reality.

Personally, I think that Christianity and other religions are a main reason for restriction in personal freedom and personal development.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Keith

I see two major flaws with Christianity relative to the OP's topic:

(1) It effectively orders people to be good to each other.
(2) It backs up that order with fear (of eternal damnation).

(1) It is not an order, but a set of Commandments, left to each person's free will and descision to follow
(2) Old Testement, yes. But Christ brought the message of forgiveness. Under Old Testement law, a woman who was found to be a prostitute could be stoned to death (much like 'modern' Islam). But, when Christ found a prostitute about to be stoned to death, his words 'He who is without sin, cast the first stone' were uttered. No stone was thrown. Then, he told the woman to 'Sin No More'. He called her to change her ways. To stop sin. He didn't say to her 'Live your life as you please and do what you want just like you have been doing'. He called her to change. He also called others to not punish her. So, with Christ, the motivator is not fear, but hope. And faith in knowing that you can be forgiven. And saved.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by seanner689

I'd rather know that we don't know everything than think that all our current beliefs are the be all and end all of reality.

Don't worry, you probably won't ever know everything. Neither do I, nor will I ever. At least while I'm still breathing.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Nelson, you've made some errors in pointing out flaws of the argument.
Oddly enough, one finds that, despite deep cultural divisions and physical distance between cultures (in the times before mass communication), there actually does seem to be some sort of objective code of morality. It's probably an evolutionary or social construct rather than one based on religion, but in every culture there are some things that are universally morally repugnant: theft, murder, abuse and so forth.

Again, there's an assumptive error made here. If your moral code is based on what's in your best interest, then that presumes that it's OK to push an old lady into the street because she happens to be in your way. Unless I miss my guess, you probably don't make a habit of pushing octogenarians into oncoming traffic. And if your own personal happiness is your prime moral directive, then robbing a corner store must be OK in your world as long as it makes you happy. That's not morality, though, that's anarchy.

Following a creed of pure personal self-interest isn't a basis for morality; rather, it's a symptom of the sociopath.

Again, I really don't have any issue with the nature of your argument, but these particular examples don't help your case.

1. The Aztec culture as well as Egyptians, Phonecians and many other cultures all sacrificed human beings to their deities - many of them (Esspecially the Phonecians) sacrificed infants.

Clear objective code of morality? I think Human sacrifice is a strong indication otherwise.

Wheeler, why would it be in my best interest to sacrfice old ladies? What value do I recieve from pushing old ladies in the street? If I do receive some value from it, does that value outweigh the negative consequences of my actions?

At no point in my life has it been in my best interest to push old ladies into the street. If you think about it, destruction and robbery are almost always in the opposite of any individual's best interest. Maybe in the short term robbery, murder and extorion look good but in the long term anyone whose really looking out for themselves will realize that the world functions much better when we are at peace with each other.

My happiness cannot fully exist without a lawful, peaceful society. Since my happiness is my mroal compass I am morally required to keep it this way.

Empathy has nothing to do with my happiness, so I don't view it as a moral standard.

In reality there is no objective moral standard. Some people think it is perfectly okay to kill and slaughter and maim. Especially when it is done in the name of a god or of love or of freedom. But in truth all death is the same. Spilled blood still stains white carpets, no matter how you justify it.

Others may believe that it is okay to defend themselves. Or they justify theft if the theft will feed the poor, or the starving or their own families.

Al Capone thought that he was providing a valuable service to people. There was no guilt on his conscience when he killed or tortured or stole. Ghengis Khan probably felt the same way when he was pillaging China.

A religion cannot fail to teach a moral because morals are made by our own personal definitions. What is "right" in the mind of one person is not right in the mind of another.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by seanner689

I don't agree with this logic at all. First of all, I don't understand how you contrast living in a christian society to living in a communist or totalitarian society? Can't a society be both totalitarian and Christian for example?

I doubt it. Communism is atheistic, so how can it be Christian?

If you look at the history of the West, we have arrived where we are today, for better or worse, largely as a result of the influence of Christian thinking in politics. Yes, that includes the wars, the Inquisition, etc.

If you think your personal freedom is restricted in the West, try living in the Middle East (I worked there for 3 years). Then, you'll know what restriction really means.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Barcs

The founding fathers were masons, and freedom of religion was one of their biggest beliefs.

They were Quakers, who are Christians and who have strong Christian beliefs, especially in tolerance.
How could you possibly deny their Christian influence in the forging of the American constitution?

It is such Christian influence in politics (also check William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery), which has enabled us to even have this conversation. Millions of people in other countries simply do not have that luxury.

[Christian223]

Personally, I think that Christianity and other religions are a main reason for restriction in personal freedom and personal development.

We Christians are to allways grow, to be just like our master Jesus. We arent free to do whatever we please though, if we say that we have higer moral standards than a rapist, murdered, and child molestor, then we can say that God has higher moral standards than us, and you wouldnt want to give personal freedom to a child molestor (im not saying you are, its just an example), imagine how God sees us.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

What bothers me a little is that some people call Christianity as if it where one thing, but sadly, in this times, Christianity is divided into thousands of different religions with different beliefs, its far more accurate to say "this Christian person i know... " and so on, rather that generalize and put everyone into the same bag.

largely as a result of the influence of Christian thinking in politics.

}

I think it would be more accurate to say "Politics thinking influenced by beliefs based on Christianity".

There is a conflicts of wills, our will and Gods will, we want something, he wants antother; we want personal freedom, imagine a rapist, he wants to be free just like we do, but would you give him freedom?.

Imagine two judges judging eachother, one has commited terrible things, you get to choose who wins the trial and escapes jail, will you choose the one with higher moral standards or the one with lower moral standards?. We are the ones with lower moral standars, God is the one higher than us.

If you have a lower moral standard, and you are a rapist, then the rapes you commit will be perfectly justified and right, for you, but for someone with higher moral standards it wont be right, so, if he judges you with his justice, youll see it as in-justice because your lower standard will justify you, but no matter how much you say you are innocent of something wrong, you are going to be judged by true justice, not a distortion of it as a result of lower moral standards.

God is good, peacefull and at the same time justice and order, he is love, what do you have if you dont have God?, you got all the oposite he is, you got evil, in-justice and chaos, suffering, desperation and hate.

In the old testament, the jews didnt want to obey God, God insisted though, he punished them, but the jews didnt want to listen, in the end God let them do whatever they wanted, God gives us freedom to choose him or not, but, since God is a God of Justice, we will be judged by him, even if we like it or not, and thats usually the case, we think nothing should stop us in the path to our desires, the law is just a bothersome obstacle, the only Justice that exists is the one that serves our individual wishes, but thats not true Justice its just an invented one, true Justice is above us, we cant control it, it rules all, it makes no differences, we can trick ourselves though with an invented justice, but in the end we will be judged rightly, we like it or not.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I doubt it. Communism is atheistic, so how can it be Christian?

Communism is a form of government, not a religion.

Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian communism exists. You were probably just led to believe they are all atheists because communism has been so widely condemned by the media.

They were Quakers, who are Christians and who have strong Christian beliefs, especially in tolerance.
How could you possibly deny their Christian influence in the forging of the American constitution?

It is such Christian influence in politics (also check William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery), which has enabled us to even have this conversation. Millions of people in other countries simply do not have that luxury.

I'm not saying that Christianity didn't influence it, but look up George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. All were masons, and freemasons as a whole believed in god, but did not limit themselves to specific interpretations. All religions were welcomed. They were careful about writing the declaration of independence and the constitution in this manner because they believed in freedom of religion. Comparing our country to countries in the middle east is is a completely irrelevant comparison when we're talking about CHRISTIAN influence, unless you want to talk about how Christianity influenced them to become violent because of the crusades and everything else.

Personally I think we'd be much more advanced as a species now if religion didn't try to impose all kinds of restrictions and the rejection of science.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Communism is a form of government, not a religion.

Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian communism exists. You were probably just led to believe they are all atheists because communism has been so widely condemned by the media.



I'm not saying that Christianity didn't influence it, but look up George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. All were masons, and freemasons as a whole believed in god, but did not limit themselves to specific interpretations. All religions were welcomed. They were careful about writing the declaration of independence and the constitution in this manner because they believed in freedom of religion. Comparing our country to countries in the middle east is is a completely irrelevant comparison when we're talking about CHRISTIAN influence, unless you want to talk about how Christianity influenced them to become violent because of the crusades and everything else.

Personally I think we'd be much more advanced as a species now if religion didn't try to impose all kinds of restrictions and the rejection of science.

Just to reiterate my main points:

Whether we like it or not, Christian thinking has influenced the history of Western society. They are inextricably linked.

Given the alternatives - communism, fascism, sharia law, or whatever, I believe we are a lot better off living in a Western, Christian influenced democratic society.

Communism is an ideology, and looking at the history of Russia and China, they have not exactly encouraged their peoples to practise their religion freely. Look at how the Buddhist monks are currently being treated in China.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Given the alternatives - communism, fascism, sharia law, or whatever, I believe we are a lot better off living in a Western, Christian influenced democratic society.

What about a secular democratic society with a strong sense of community? Why bring religion into it at all?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Keith

What about a secular democratic society with a strong sense of community? Why bring religion into it at all?

Realistically, do you think such a society would be possible?
If the government of such a society banned all religious expression, then it would be a suppressive regime.
If all religious belief somehow faded away over time, there would be those in power with their own belief systems trying to influence how that society was run.
There would be those who had no time for ideas about the human soul, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc, who would be intent on trying to create some kind of soulless, master race.
I imagine the key trait in such a society would be survival of the fittest.

[Brutha]

Realistically, do you think such a society would be possible?

Japan is a fine democracy with little Christian influence.

In Germany the amount of Christian influence also goes down and I don't think that it is significant anymore for the workings of society.
Humanism has taken the place of providing the shared values.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Japan is a fine democracy with little Christian influence.

Japan became a democracy as part of their surrender terms to the Allies in 1944 and the country was made to adopt a constitution similar to that of the U.S, which guaranteed religious freedom. However, this freedom appears to have been eroded over recent years, with signs of a return to pre-war values.

From an article by Tokihisa Sumimoto (abridged):

Since mid-century, Japan has grown to become one of the most highly industrialized countries in the world. In marked contrast to the rapid development it has enjoyed in the economic arena, however, Japan's culture of civil liberty-particularly religious liberty-is still very much in its infancy. This is partially because the principle of the separation between church and state, which Western countries such as the United States tend to take for granted, has no parallel in Japanese tradition. Instead, the usual pattern of Japanese history has been for governments to control religion. In the words of Metraux (1997), "Americans have a long tradition of the separation of the two entities, but that distinction, despite the postwar constitution, does not exist in the Japanese cultural mind."

Other factors inhibiting the maturation of a culture of religious liberty are an atmosphere of religious apathy, a general lack of respect for human rights, a tradition of social authoritarianism, the absence of a truly independent judiciary and, in recent years, an officially-sanctioned intolerance of religion. As a consequence, threats to religious freedom have rarely met with resistance, with the exception of opposition from certain religious minorities.

In the absence of a strong tradition of independent moral principles and civil liberty, what prevails in Japan is social authoritarianism. Okamoto (1993, 125) notes that the "collapse of authoritarianism has been a global phenomenon, seen both in capitalist and socialist economies-excluding only some third world countries and Japan." Authoritarianism has not met with significant resistance from the Japanese, Okamoto (1993, 125) explains, because of attitudes characterized by "standardized uniformity, blind obedience to directives, and group thinking which rejects differences." And there are few signs of a more democratic effort emerging to challenge the authoritarian tendencies of Japanese society.

These attitudes are reinforced by the Japanese education system which emphasizes memorization rather than the logical thinking necessary for intellectual analyses of socio-political phenomena. Comparing Japanese and Western education, Rohlen (1983, 268) concludes, "schooling in logic is as old as Western civilization itself. By contrast, the Japanese tradition . . . has long emphasized memorization and imitation. One approach helps the internalization of a moral and intellectual frame of reference, the second aids adjustment to the environment."

A final factor inhibiting the emergence of a Japanese tradition of religious liberty is the immaturity of the judiciary as a truly independent institution. As O'Brien (1996, 135) observes, "The Supreme Court and the lower courts almost invariably reinforce the government's position out of seemingly purblind deference. As a result . . . 'the courts have ceased to function as an independent judiciary, and merely follow the dictates of the administrative judgment.' . . . The separation of the power of the courts from that of the government more generally appears to be a precondition or prerequisite for enforcing the Constitution's mandate for the separation of government from religion."

Given that the constitution stipulates freedom of religion, legal cases involving religious liberty issues lead immediately to constitutional questions. Constitutional decisions are, however, usually avoided by the courts, which abide by a "rule of strict necessity."
In a democracy, the judiciary is normally the branch of government through which individuals can demand remedy for damaged or threatened civil rights. Their claims should be judged solely on the basis of the law, and judicial decisions should not be influenced by other governmental authorities. When the judiciary lacks independence as it does in Japan, the rights of individuals lose their edge and become vulnerable to state and social encroachments.
Conclusion

Religious freedom in Japan is being gradually but steadily eroded by a variety of different political and social forces. Because average citizens are indifferent to these issues, prospects for a reversal of this trend appear bleak. The absence of a cultural atmosphere conducive to religious liberty is simultaneously a result and a cause of Japan's underdeveloped civil liberty tradition. Furthermore, there have been few influential religious movements-with the exception of some minority organizations such as Soka Gakkai-or educational reform efforts promoting the ideal of independent moral judgment as opposed to the dominant tradition of submission to authority. Finally, the judicial independence needed to effectively oppose state encroachment on religious and civil liberties is largely undeveloped in the Japanese system.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Realistically, do you think such a society would be possible?
If the government of such a society banned all religious expression, then it would be a suppressive regime.
If all religious belief somehow faded away over time, there would be those in power with their own belief systems trying to influence how that society was run.
There would be those who had no time for ideas about the human soul, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc, who would be intent on trying to create some kind of soulless, master race.
I imagine the key trait in such a society would be survival of the fittest.

I'm sorry, but you are missing a few critical points. You seem to be drawing lines where there are none to be drawn.

First, nobody said that this particular form of government would BAN religious expression. They just wouldn't incorporate it into their policy. You just assumed that it would, because the word "secular" was used. Secular is not ANTI-religion, it is simply not regarding religious things as sacred. It does not mean intolerance. A secular society could easily tolerate religious practice.

Second, morals and religion are completely separate, just as spirituality and religion are. People can still be good, selfless, compassionate, spiritual people without adhering to a religious doctrine. I know MANY people like this. I would think the key in a society like this would be to care for others and to not cause intentional harm and suffering to others. Basically follow the golden rule.

Survival of the fittest is still going on today and always will, but the only problem is right now, many people (mostly technicality lawyers & politicians) continually make idiot laws that protect the stupid. For example... In a school someone jumps out a window and dies. His own fault. So what happens now? The school gets sued for having windows that open that far and now virtually every school in the country has windows that only open a crack because of this, devoiding our kids of fresh air. All idiots that want to jump out of the window are now protected and will thrive in today's society. This shouldn't happen as it weakens the human race as a whole.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I'm sorry, but you are missing a few critical points. You seem to be drawing lines where there are none to be drawn.

First, nobody said that this particular form of government would BAN religious expression. They just wouldn't incorporate it into their policy. You just assumed that it would, because the word "secular" was used. Secular is not ANTI-religion, it is simply not regarding religious things as sacred. It does not mean intolerance. A secular society could easily tolerate religious practice.

I never said I was against secular society. If there is freedom of religion, that's fine. Keeping state and religion separate is OK by me.
However, ministers and politicians will always be influenced by their personal beliefs, consciously or sub-consciously, (whether they are Christian, atheist, humanist, or whatever) when making governmental decisions.
If you had read my last post, you would have seen that it was in response to Keith's question, 'Why bring religion into it at all?'
I then tried to envisage a society where there was no religion and came up with two alternatives - one, where religion was suppressed, and one, where religion had somehow faded away. In the latter case, I believe such a society would be laying itself wide open to take over by some extremist group, unless they showed sufficient courage, mettle and strength.

[Brutha]

Constitutional decisions are, however, usually avoided by the courts, which abide by a "rule of strict necessity."

Japan is a country where the constitution doesn't has the same role as it has in the US.

Japan also has a tradition in which they think that every case is unique, which means nobody will succeed in suing MacDonalds for millons for hot coffee. Considerations of what is right is relativly more important than what is law than in the US.

In general the Japanese also don't see religion as something special which needs additional rights.

In general I don't think that you can make a case after what happend in the last year in the US that the US is that good at protecting civil liberties either.

Furthermore, there have been few influential religious movements-with the exception of some minority organizations such as Soka Gakkai-or educational reform efforts promoting the ideal of independent moral judgment as opposed to the dominant tradition of submission to authority.

Christanity is about submission to the moral authority of Christ.
Religion isn't about indepence from authority.

I think that at Japan at present neither surpresses religion nor is ruled by an extremist group.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that at Japan at present neither surpresses religion nor is ruled by an extremist group.

I agree - 'at present'. Let's resume this conversation in a few years time and compare notes.

[magi13]

Morals are often learned first by children from their parents who learned it form there parents.

The second teacher they learn this is from school.

The third is there religion or faith.

Then their surroundings.

We cannot put the blame on religion or Christianity per say if there are just bad men around in this world, besides if you really did study the Christian faith then you'd know it's a nice set of beliefs. It does stress on love and empathy. (corinthians, onwards does stress this)

^,^ I hope that clears things or at the least tickled your thoughts.

p.s. the real problem is that people often think the current problems are someone else's problem.