Let it furthermore be resolved that the Congress is almost wholly consistent of lobcocks and shitbirds.

(with apologies to MSG "Death From Above" Tripps)

pALEPHx wrote:

Yes, yes... Far more important than climate change, education, AIDS, poverty, New Orleans, etc. etc. I'm so glad they could all agree on something...even if it was only because they were mostly afraid to disagree with it.

On another note, does affirmation of a particular religion above all others represent a form of discrimination or intolerance?

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

On yet another note, out of those Americans who claim to be Christians on surveys, how many of them actually perform any kind of worship at all, even if it's just showing up to church at Christmas and Easter?  I'd guess it's far lower than 75%.  Most surveys don't distinguish between "cultural" Christians and "religious" Christians.

tojo2000 wrote:

On another note, does affirmation of a particular religion above all others represent a form of discrimination or intolerance?

Good question.  It would be interesting to see the answer to that question as applied to all the groups represented.  How many in the study who identified themselves as Muslim, Jewish, etc. regularly attend organized worship services.  Would their percentages be higher or lower than the Christian group?

Zookeeper wrote:

Good question.

I'm sure Tojo thanks you.

Americans are probably the biggest hypocrites on the planet, when it comes to religious observation. We probably lie about it more than anything to do with the various 'sins' combined. You always have to wonder about any subjects of an experiment or assay who, if given an escape from the maze, opt to stay in it (or to automatically presume that if the cheese has always been there, then there's no reason to leave). That's not 'hypocrisy' anymore...

I would guess you'd probably find a disproportionately higher number of Jews (adjusted for the wide difference in group size) who would freely admit to being somewhat lax in their practices. Our absence from temple doesn't carry the same warnings of retribution, nor are we considered "lapsed" or "banished" if we don't show up for lesser holy days. Personally, I've met very few orthodox or otherwise strictly religious Jews who possessed an unqualified understanding of "what might happen" if they didn't follow kosher laws, etc. For example, I had a bar mitzvah, my brother did not. None of us are particularly worried for his immortal soul, spirit, or whatever (at least, not on this account). Ultimately, I would question any faith that compels its adherents to obey with the threat of punishment.

Buddhists probably get a pass on all of this, if their "commitment level" can't be measured by the same conditions. For most other faiths, you don't get a do-over if you fuck up.

My dad the Reverend never looked down on the lapsed Christians knocking on the door for various holy matrimonial or funerary rights. Nor did any of his colleagues as they all got paid per service. In the 1970s when it became fashionable to have non-church weddings the diocese handed down orders to encourage more traditional weddings as booking for church properties had fallen off. My dad was against this edict though, but then I think he enjoyed more bohemian weddings where the receptions began immediately and he could unwind after the job with a few drinks.

In those laid back days of yore I went to a lot of weddings with my dad. I always remember the jokes my parents made about the envelopes I saw discretely passed up to Dad.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-12-31 04:47:23)

tojo2000 wrote:

The part I always wondered about is whether pastors ever feel awkward about getting called up for marriages and funerals by people who are not members of their church and have a dubious connection to the church in general.  As an example, I remember the random priest at my Grandpa's funeral going on about Job, and thinking "Boy did he miss the boat."

Although it's been on hold for the past year, year and-a-half, I've been studying for the ministry in the Buddhist Churches of America (I've rattled on about this before). Now that cooking school is out of the way and I'm gainfully employed again and thoroughly enjoying my job, it's back to the ministerial stuff again.

Many of the priests I know in the BCA are very discouraged by the numbers of people who show up at temple only for the big events (for us that would be New Year, Hanamatsuri, memorial services, etc) and who don't show up the rest of the year. They're not particularly thrilled with people who show up demanding all the priest's attention for their wedding or funeral, for example, but who never show up otherwise. Get a minister or priest buzzed or high sometime, and they'll tell you some pretty good stories.

Last edited by Taint (2007-12-31 14:02:32)

pALEPHx wrote:

It's why we have shmucks like Wayne Dyer on the lecture circuit and repeated ad nauseam during PBS pledge drives. People use Buddhism on the one hand to dilute the harshness of a different faith; on the other, to enhance a sense of natural connection and more universal meaning. Woven into things like fad diets and exercise programs, I think Buddhist principles are misused for a lot of that feel-good stuff I mentioned earlier.

It's enormously tedious, but - as I mentioned earlier - the Buddha himself is credited with having stated there are 84,000 paths to enlightenment.

Buddhism in the US takes two forms: the Buddhism of those who grew up with the religion, and the Buddhism of converts. I'm a convert, and am probably more zealous than those those who grew up with it, as a result. I got it from my mother, who had long been interested in Buddhism herself but never converted. Gradually, after years of practicing Soto Zen, I converted to Jodo Shinshu Buddhism.

Buddhism, and Hinduism for that matter, in the US is frequented by many who desire little more than a feel good understanding of the religion, and consequently borrow what ever makes them feel nice about themselves, and who - in addition - love the aesthetics of the religion. They're frequently the loudest in correcting others about what Buddhism is "really about" and are appalled by my own denomination's lack of rigidity about things like vegetarianism (We really don't even pretend to be vegetarians and many a temple has sustained itself on chicken bento box sales and spagetti/crab feeds throughout the US).

Buddhism is misused, and abused I might even add. For some reason, it would be unthinkable to decorate a spa or restaurant with crucifixes, but it's OK to scatter a few statues of the Buddha or a bodhisattva around to show everyone how spiritutal and enlightened you are.

Ultimately, it's no big deal. They derive what they're looking for from it and nothing else.

Taint wrote:

Ultimately, it's no big deal. They derive what they're looking for from it and nothing else.

Only 84,000? I think I'll wait for the Flying Spaghetti-Crab Monster.

[polishes Buddha statuettes left by dead grandmother]

I know that resource. It's an interesting way to pass the time, and I've been through it many times. Its Buddhist resources aren't very comprehensive though, as it also tends to focus on the better known - and infinitely sexier - schools of Zen and Vajrayana. My denomination, Jodo Shinshu, is rooted in the Pure Land school and is basically the hausfrau of Buddhism. Lovable, but a little dumpy around the edges. For that, you might consider a gander at these sites: http://shindharmanet.com and http://shinranworks.com.

Don't wear a sheet or nothing but I have had a religously reverence for the Tassajara Bread Book since 1972. That put me any closer to enlightenment?