As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Excuse me my good Sir. Are you calling me a hippy?

Ah yes, I see. By the way, I have nothing against this. As I said, I'm sure cranberry does have genuine health benefits, it's a fruit after all, and it seems very likely that it helps urinary problems. But a doctor prescribing the use of cranberry is very different to being prescribed something like homeopathy!

But it also tastes like the devil's ass... Eurgh.

Mango juice all the way!

The answer is: As long as they don't harm anyone else, let people do and believe and take in what they bloody please.
I mean - what's wrong about being cured by the placebo effect. We know that this effect has a big part in scientific medicine, too.
If people choose to belive in homeopathy? Those who prescribe those preparations have to be very convincing. The conversation they have with patiens have much to do with psychology. It's like religion really. Peolpe lead a happy live by believing in Jesus and they get their theological dose every sunday. Doesn't work for me, but if it works for others? Suits me just fine.

As I said: As long as they don't harm anyone else.
But there are things about homeopathy that do irk me. I don't know about Britain. In Germany homeopathic preparations are treated like "real" mediacation in that they can only be bought in pharmacies. There is no reason to prevent suggar and water form being sold in the supermarked. It gives those preparations a guise of "seriousness" they do not deserve.

Too far, man.

Also we get the Red Cross, quite a few charity organizations, ironically, quite a few scientists somehow never quit their religious faith no matter what they discovered (Copernicus was a priest, Kepler was very religious, Newton... one of the authors of the Big Bang hypothesis was a priest).

Why is religion attacked as a principle and nobody whatsoever attacks some of the fundamentalist rhetorics? I would say that by attacking any religion as a whole for a certain thing, we miss the point and do much more harm in general than if we pinpointed the exact rhetorics that are at heart with fundamentalists. Saying, for example, Islam is/is not a religion of peace, we miss the point whatsoever by arguing statements that are in fact both valid on the same level. Jihad? Well, first it's the internal struggle of the believer and THEN it is a military term. And in fact, in most cases, it's perceived as a defensive war, in rare circumstances it's used for offensive means. So I would rather ask, why this rhetorics works among the Arab groups? Why and by whom do they feel persecuted?

Crusaders and Zionists? Sure, this puts it as a religious conflict. But why don't we look deeper at it and not consider that the first group for example performed so much of what we would call legally genocide today (massacring both Jews and Muslims) that it is still regarded a trauma over 900 years after it happened?

Even let's give a little look at the conflict in Gaza right now. Do you regard Israel as a religious state I wonder? If you do, then you are deeply wrong. The Haredi community, the most radically religious Jewish population, doesn't really participate in what's happening there. As you know, Israel is not only one of the only countries which still use military draft, but also drafts women for obligatory military service. And guess what. The Haredi community is not drafted, because they're treated automatically as conscientous objectors.

So if you're anti-Israel in what's happening out there (though the situation is much more complex than that and while I am shocked by the civilian casualties I also happen to be scared for a friend of mine, who's too scared to leave her house in case a rocket actually gets in her town's vicinity; there are even towns near the Strip where people have 30 seconds to run to a shelter in case of an attack... happening on an everyday basis), religion is out of the equation on that side.

All you say is fine and dandy. But the problem is that we're not as rational in human nature as you'd like us to be. This is why a guy claiming that people were around when dinosaurs were extinct, will get more popularity than any, even the most fun, explanation of Darwinian, or not, evolution. Aristotle said that a speech can speak to reason (logos), character (ethos; a point I largely forgot, since I read it years ago) and emotion (pathos; literally suffering). And the truth is that 90% of the cases? Pathos triumphs logos big time. So if you want the more productive values than "let's blow up some Crusaders/Zionists/whoever", or in fact speak against all the awful things that indeed do happen because of religious ideas, then find a way to get to the regular Joe in Africa, Middle East or wherever by speaking to their emotions. Not by trying to reason with them.

You're a hot hippie .

There's no kind of pizza I don't like. Pizza is irresistible heaven.

Doesn't sound too bad, but I'll take your word for it! (Except maybe the cabbage... )

I like a simple margarita pizza, thin crispy base, plenty of olive oil, fresh basil and tomatoes, with a peroni. a PROPER Mediterranean made one I hasten to add.

I think it's quite appropriate to be talking about pizza on the religion thread. No, seriously!

It does exist! I've seen it and eaten it.

Well obviously my well travelled friend. I forgot India. The place of wackiness and all kinds of sunil craziness