Re: CHAT: Religion, Philosophy & Politics

On First Life of Tenderness of the first Red Cat Jonathan Chang wrote:

> In a message dated 2000/04/30 08:43:19 AM, Ray.Brown wrote:
>
> >I've found it's good advice until one gets the feel of the company one's
> >in.  On this list we've managed, on the whole, not to exclude religion;
> >Dirk has told us he is a Mormon on several occasions, Philips's Buddhism
is
> >well-known, Aidan Grey has told us of his paganism, Irina has told us she
> >is Orthodox, we know that Steg (inter alios) is a Jew, Jeffrey Henning
has
> >told us he a Congregationalist, I've not hidden my Catholicism etc
> >(I know I've not included everyone or every religion a list member has
said
> >s/he hold - please forgive omissions).
I've found out to be an Agnostic Roman Catholic who is very curious in
knowing what other people believe.  The only serious problem I've found when
chating on religion is trying to explain my girlfriend I'm not Atheist (she
is Roman Catholic).  Speaking on religion is an interesting thing to do in
my opinion.  I've been able to discuse on religion (and even on the Bible)
with Evangelicans and Witness of Jehovah (the funny thing is that I, as an
average RC, don't read the Bible).  I have no problem with other people's
believes.

>     My 2 cents: Philosophically I am a Taoist who finds Chaos Science
> sympathetic to ideas of Taoism. Also I am very much intrigued by
Heraclitus,
> the Greek philosopher closest to Taoist ideas in the West.
>     I am non-religious.
I don't know how to describe my philosophy.  I'm not a religious person but
I'm not a non-religious either.  I believe in doing the right thing, in
following principles and moral standards, I believe in science and I don't
believe in science ineffability, I'm skeptical in UFO, gosts, metaphysics
and magic but I don't deny them.  I try not to be supersticious and I don't
like supersticion in the practice of my faith.  I don't read the horoscope
(I refuse to even read them).

> >Ah, politics - not mentioned much and I have sneaking suspicion that it
> >might prove more divisive than religion.
>
>     Politically, I tend to take a "pragmatic anarchist"/"provisional
> pacifist" viewpoint
> in keeping with ChuangTzu & Sun Tzu's _Art of War_ (Sun Tzu was a Taoist).
Well.  I agree in that politics are a more dangerous ground than religion,
any how I find no problem discusing politics either as longer as we know
what we pretend.  I would discuse politics in a forum where it is expected
to discuse politics and deffend one's point of view.  I wouldn't discuse
politics in this list but I see no problem exposing one's point of view.
(If someone wants details on my political PoV, can just get my profile in
Deja (chlewey@my-deja.com) and follow my postings to soc.culture.colombia)

I believe in personal freedom, law and order.  A state able to warant my
safety and my right to freely decide what to do with my life as longer as I
don't become a menace to the safety of other people.  I belive in private
property and I don't believe in solving conflicts with guns.  (I have just
exposed what I believe, and I don't want anybody discusing this in this
forum, if you disagree answer me privately or in a propper forum)

[...]
> >Indeed, I think that we have managed on the whole to be able to mention
our
> >own religious affiliations has added a richness to this list and I agree
> >that it would be a pity if this stopped.  Ok, there might be an odd
> >flair-up but even this latest one is now, I think, gone. Dan & I have
> >obviously misunderstood one another at some point and both wish to stop
the
> >arguments going any further; we are both I think, agreed on both points.
> >This is, maybe, part of defining the "ground rules" within which we can
> >freely mention our beliefs.
>
>     Hear hear I agree.
Me too: Agree!

-- Carlos Th