4568Re: Fundamentalism and Religion
- Mar 9 9:13 PMHello Jonathan and All,
My point was that all religions, including Eckankar,
are unnecessary and are, in many cases, the causes
of war. Religions are antiquated, full of myth, and
mostly benefit a hierarchy of men. The Moslem
terrorists of 9/11 were on a Jihad for their God.
It was not political! However, with Islamic countries
politics is intertwined with the religious scripture,
but the religious dogma will always have the greater
influence. With our government Capitalism (money)
has the greater influence. In truth, money, power,
lust, and fear have influence over all religions and
I don't think 911 was Moslems forcing their religious beliefs on the United
States. I don't understand your thought process on that.
You think we have the right to invade Afghanistan because women are being
abused. Plenty of women are abused in the United States. So I assume that you
support Moslems or any other country invading the United States for that reason.
Afghanistan is their country. It's that simple. The United States has no right
invading countries in the world and then changing their culture. We go over
there, force our beliefs on them, and it just makes things worse for the people
there (including the women) in the long run. Afghanistan will still be there 100
years from now. The United States won't. When the invasion no longer suits our
purposes we will be gone, leaving Afghanistan in ruins. That's what the United
States always does.
Why don't you talk to some educated Filipinos and educated Indians to see
whether the West helped their countries? Americans have said "Look how much we
helped the Philippines." Brits have said "Look how much we helped India." I
think you should get some opinions from the people in those countries. I think
you should get some opinions from people in those countries and not just believe
the propaganda you've been fed in the United States.
Invading armies always do what is good for themselves. The idea that the
invading country "cares" about the people there is just propaganda. All invading
countries use this propaganda. The Russians do it, the United States does it.
They do it because it plays good at home.
If you talk to the Afghans, they don't necessarily believe the Americans are any
better than the Russians. If you talk to Vietnames, they don't necessarily
believe the Americans were any better than the French. But the United States
always manages to serve up a large helping of propaganda that people in the
United States always seem to believe. The point is, they want their own country.
They don't want any foreigners there. Just like Americans wouldn't want foreign
soldiers occupying their country. I've spent thousands of hours talking to
foreigners. Have you?
And regarding 911 and America's reaction to that. Every time America invades a
Moslem country it creates another 100,000 Muslim terrorists. That's progress in
the "war" on terror?
Just before the invasion of Iraq, the CIA released a report saying that there
was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They went on to say that invading Iraq and deposing
Saddam Husein would likely destabilize Iraq and lead to a situation where
Al-Qaeda would get themsleves established. My point in mentioning this is that
this is that Bush's contention that there was Al-Qaeda in Iraq was just
Likewise his assertion that WMDs were there was also propaganda. I watched Colin
Powel's WMD presentation at the UN. I have extensive government experience with
imagery. Everything Colin Powell said was a pack of lies, although I think
Powell probably lacked the experience to realize that. Again, more government
bty, thanks for starting a new thread and changing the title.
--- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
> Hello Jonathan and All,
> I thought that I'd reply to some comments
> with my opinions as well.
> Jonathan wrote:
> [J]: You also stated "I do respect other's rights
> to their religious beliefs and practices, but admit
> that I am concerned and bothered by fanatics,
> fundalmentalists and radicals. In fact, these factions
> are pretty scary."
> I understand your concern over "fanatics and radicals,"
> but only if they try to force their beliefs on me. Otherwise
> what they do is none of my business. If they are breaking
> the laws of their country then they will ahve to deal with
> ME: I think that 9/11/2001 was a way of forcing
> Islamic beliefs on to us just as other religions
> use other methods and by any means necessary.
> [J]: A Moslem man acurately pointed out to me that
> "fundalmentalist" simply means that a person follows
> a very basic form of their religion. In other words,
> Christian Amish, Orthodox Jews, and Moslems who
> follow Islam as it was followed 500 years ago are
> all legitimately "fundalmentalists."
> ME: I don't think that is accurate. Fundamentalists
> take their scripture literally! This is what makes them
> dangerous and motivates them to make sure that their
> scripture is fulfilled. Thus, anything they do for their
> God, or his Prophets, is justified and the highest law.
> [J]: So the new media has managed to brainwash Americans
> into believing that a Muslim society that restricts women
> (by American standards, of course) is synonymous with
> a Muslim man with a rocket launcher on his shoulder.
> It's a big lie. But it was used to help justify our involvement
> in Afghanistan (we're there to help Afghan women, therefore
> the war is a noble and justified cause).
> ME: Islam restricts women by (civilized) World Standards
> and not just by U.S. standards. Islam will remain a barbaric
> (uncivilized) religion because of its scripture. These fundamental
> beliefs cannot be changed, unless, the scripture is changed.
> And Yes, to some extent the war in Afghanistan is a noble
> and justified cause when women are denied an education
> and have acid thrown on them.
> [J]: If there are religions in the world that restrict women
> then let the men and women in those religions do
> something about it if they choose. It really is nobody
> else's business to interfere. This policy of America
> interfering in other peoples around the world is really
> an extension of Christianity which feels that it has the
> right to change others to what it believes is right. It
> happened during the Christian Crusades, and the
> United States of America is doing it today. Yes, I know
> Muslims have done this too. I know that Muslims did
> it in Eastern Europe and Northern India. It has been
> a tendency of both Christianity and Islam for a very
> long time.
> ME: How can the women do anything when the men
> have seen to it that they have no power or authority?
> Besides, it would go against their scripture to do
> something else, thus, there wouldn't be anything
> that anyone could do! The trick is to keep people
> ignorant, poor, and stirred up. This is how fundamentalism,
> especially, and religion, in general, works as a opiate
> for the masses.
> [J]: Ultimately, I guess I have been struggling with whether
> I should start calling Eckankar a cult. If I did that then
> I would have to call all of the large religions cults as well,
> and I am not prepared to do that. Either all of them are
> cults or all of them are religions.
> ME: Yes, all religions are cults! Even the "loving" Jesus
> threatened people, or else! Religions are Groups of like
> minded people who want to be told what they are supposed
> to do. Fundamentalist Religions encourage a Mob behaviour
> where right and wrong no longer exist because there are
> "higher" laws to be followed. There is no individualism
> within these religions. It is not tolerated. Where religions
> have control of the government and religious laws are
> higher than manmade laws one cannot practice freedom
> of belief. They must agree with the Religious Leaders and
> the Mob mentality or else they and their families will be
> persecuted. Actually, control of the government and of
> the masses with their own laws are what all religious
> leaders are striving for. Misery loves company. Power,
> money, lust and fear still control religious belief.
> Thus, I believe that all religions are impractical and
> unnecessary. Religions are like modified forms/versions
> of marketing pyramids or vice versa. They are full of
> myths, distortions, and lies. There are always "leaders"
> who "know" more than timid and ignorant followers
> (sinners). And, no follower can ever surpass the "leaders,"
> unless, they are chosen (by the leaders) to do so. No
> "unapproved" follower is permitted to disagree with
> the leaders and with the scripture, or to excel in spirituality
> beyond that of the "Leader."
> mish wrote:
> > Jonathan, you have made some interesting comments
> > regarding other religions and how eckists view them. A
> > big part of the eckankar dogma is to instill in a member's
> > mind that being an eckist is to be an enlightened/chosen
> > one--planting the seed of spiritual superiority. And yet,
> > the way chelas are held back from advancing in a timely
> > manner via initiations, it seems rather funny that chelas
> > can feel superior to other religious groups while they
> > themselves are kept in a very subservient standing within
> > the eckankar circle.
> > I do respect other's rights to their religious beliefs and
> > practices, but admit that I am concerned and bothered by
> > fanatics, fundalmentalists and radicals. In fact, these factions
> > are pretty scary.
> > Yesterday, I met a gentleman--a very interesting and polite
> > fellow who shared a bit about his background, stating that
> > he came to North America in 1972 from an African country.
> > He very easily added too that he was a moslem. Now, I do not
> > care for Islam at all as I believe it is very archaic and being a
> > female . . . well, I'm just glad I never had to follow such religious
> > teachings. However, I liked this man very much and it does
> > not bother me that he is a moslem at all. He obviously practices
> > the best aspects of it . . .
> > But frankly, I have come to not like religions at all . . . they are
> > manmade for the purpose of controlling and manipulating
> > groups of people. I have never met a religion that didn't instill
> > fear in its followers . . . and some also teach hatred and violence.
> > I do not respect religion, but I do respect and like people, even
> > if I do not share their beliefs.
> > Anyway, just a few comments in response to your interesting
> > posts.
> > Thanks,
> > Mish
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>