John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Your understanding is flawed. Neo-Confucianism developed during the Song Dynasty, between 960 and 1279 A.D. New Confucianism might be what you are thinking of, but it's tiny and unimportant.
Only In Ameri.....The Netherlands?
- Thread starter John Uskglass
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You're still unclear on what bearing this has on CCR's argument, though. It's pretty clear in context that he's talking about Western Society, and people that would seek spiritual fulfillment by Western means.
If the need for tradition and social environs are required for one's path to spiritual fulfillment, then CCR is all for it.
What does that have to do with Confucianism?
If the need for tradition and social environs are required for one's path to spiritual fulfillment, then CCR is all for it.
What does that have to do with Confucianism?
CCR said:
Well, I guess something got lost in translation from Dutch-names-they-give-stuff to English-names-they-give-stuff. Yet, my point still stands.
However, let's make love not war and leave this whole mess behind us now because OMG I should be cramming interdependant cultural and economic world-systems in history now instead of this
Interesting theory, except for the part where CDA isn't even Christian anymore. They're just a centric party doing...what they like. Not basing it off of Christ's message(s).Hovercar Madness said:
No, not really likely. Christianity really is quite small in the Netherlands, and nothing resembling a move back towards Christianity has come up anywhere.Bradylama said:
Hovercar Madness
Still Mildly Glowing
Well, that's basically the point. The Republican party by itself isn't a religiously oriented party (wasn't Thomas Jefferson a republican?). The fact that they have taken such a stand on issues like stem cell research, gay marriages, abortion, bla, shows the influence of the Religious Right on party policy. The point of the article was that SGP/Christenunie could take a similar role inside the CDA: turning a mainly secular party into a christian one.
I do agree with you that the secularisation process in the Netherlands is in a pretty advanced stage, so there's not much of a chance of that happening.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I didn't say that it was happening, but that it would happen. Cultural shifts often take generations.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Islam at this point seems more likely. We are already seeing a marrige between Islamic Fundementalists and the far left. Conversion to Islam is not that far off.Bradylama said:
Bradylama said:
Would or could.
From what I scrolled over in this thread, people seem to be missing two major points diversifying this event from American events;
1. Holland has no such thing as federal law. Now that the EU Constitution has been rejected, we definitely point-blank have only one lawbook that applies to all citizens equally and which covers everything. You can't have gay marriage here and not there, you can't have death penalty here and not there.
This is why the article doesn't use the word "law". This isn't a rule or law, it's hardly even a suggestion. The only thing local communities in the Netherlands can do is stipulate local policy, which might mean civil workers are hereby prohibited from banning, contractually. A bit weird, sure, but not important. That's what Sander was referring to too. At most it's symbolic, it doesn't mean anything.
2. Dutch and American religious experiences are completely different. Movements such as the born-agains don't exist here.
The Netherlands has religious roots, though, but they're not comparable to that of the USA except that in they're Christian and Western. But Dutch religious roots go back a long way and have only been violently uptorn during the great post-WW II securalisation movements, which Sander mentioned.
Does this make us areligious people? That's an illusion a lot of Dutch people like to nurture, such as Sander who thinks Christianity is small in the Netherlands (hah!). We have a disenfranchised generation of babyboomers with no grasp of religion or identity, which just flailed around and grasped for things such as hookers and drugs to make up. Fine with me, but most people can't stand it.
Holland has a bible-belt of at least as significant a portion of the people as the USA does. The muslims immigrants tend to be fiercely religious (other immigrants not so much and a lot of muslims do stray off the path here). And furthermore I think a significant portion (probably the majority) of Holland identifies strongly with Christianity as a philosophy and religion. A lot of them, one could say, are Christian at heart if not in the head.
The differences between the USA and the Netherlands are still significant, though. John might be right in saying that a major overtake of islam in our country could happen, where it's more unlikely in your country, though that is mostly typical Bush anti-terrorism scare-mongering (yay for being scared of everything).
But even so the religious experiences are different. I heard prof. James Kennedy about the matter in detail. He himself is a born-again Christian, and an American now living and teaching in Holland (University of Amsterdam), As he puts it, Dutch people are afraid of American religiosity as they don't understand it. Your religiosity is, in fact, pretty different from ours.
State and church being intertwined is nothing new to the US. You never had a securalisation as agressive as ours. Where in our country the prime minister mentioning God is considered offensive (as he should represent ALL his citizens, not just the Christian ones), your president mentions God whispering in his ear about killing terrorist in every damn speech he makes.
Your religiosity is a generally accepted one, and a fun one. Churches pop up everywhere as people discover and rediscover themselves. Penny-a-piece religious experiences pop up everywhere and make for many born-again Christians. And nobody finds it strange that this has a religious effect.
Our religiosity is a shunned one and to think it strong in the political world makes people shudder, which fits well with Sander's "CDA is not religious" remark (which is not strictly true). The Bible-belt are viewed as a bunch of halfwits. But it's hard to deny one's own history. Our country has ever since the split of the Church been a cold, harsh, Lutheran country. No friendly-smile Christianity, no happy Christianity, our Christianity has always been hard and clear and for that reason the Netherlands was considered the backward country of NW Europe during the 19th century, lagging behind progressive nations like Belgium, the UK and France.
We may have rebelled against it, we may be the torch-bearers now, lighting the progressive and non-Christian way for the rest of the world to see, but it's also pretty easy to see that might not be the best path to take and it could easily backfire on one. Could we re-Christianify? Sure, we could, but it'd be a hell of a lot different from the USA's religious experiences, which are shunned by our fundamental Christians as being too frivolous and shunned by the rest for being too extreme.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
I'm very glad Welsh brought up something I've always wondered. "Why does CCR recommend church when he himself wont go to one?"
First of all thanks to Welsh for asking what I didnt. More so thanks to CCR for giving a good answer.
I dont quite understand where your coming from CCR and your definitely more educated in the "answer" than I am, but I certainly agree with you. Without going into details that are both long, complicated, and sad I must say that what kills a person's belief in God is often other's involvement in the personal relationship between God and the believer. Namely the creation, operation, and empowerment of organizations that, in my opinion, care more about profits, power, and hidden-agendas than actual faith and the advancement thereof.
I guess I'll just say that only one man's will is necessary to find the word of God and thereby condemn or save himself by finding the Almighty. Any interdiction, to me, is just as bad as the devil himself trying to turn you away from God.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
First of all thanks to Welsh for asking what I didnt. More so thanks to CCR for giving a good answer.
I dont quite understand where your coming from CCR and your definitely more educated in the "answer" than I am, but I certainly agree with you. Without going into details that are both long, complicated, and sad I must say that what kills a person's belief in God is often other's involvement in the personal relationship between God and the believer. Namely the creation, operation, and empowerment of organizations that, in my opinion, care more about profits, power, and hidden-agendas than actual faith and the advancement thereof.
I guess I'll just say that only one man's will is necessary to find the word of God and thereby condemn or save himself by finding the Almighty. Any interdiction, to me, is just as bad as the devil himself trying to turn you away from God.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
welsh
Junkmaster
I actually support this idea VD. But I think this raises a problem between the religious and the spiritual.
For me there is a divide between the spiritualist and the religious. The spiritualist wants to develop a closer spiritual relationship with God, a more personal relationship in which they feel touched by the spirit of God. It is mostly emotion and feeling. The evangelical movement did a great job of sellling itself on this.
The problem here is that generally, we're thinking people. The state of bliss or grace with God is often difficult to rationalize or understand, and we are thinking creatures.
Thus religion allows us, through rituals, teachings, extensive study, to try to rationalize our relationship with God. The problem with this, and I think for most folks who go to Church, that it gets a bit boring and complex- it distances one from the spirit. Most Catholics probably fall into this funk.
Combining both the spirit and the religious is a difficult balance which includes that between your personal relationship with God and your exterior relationship with society or a sub-group of society that practices your faith.
Trying to find out where you fit isn't an easy one. I didn't return to Catholicism or even get confirmed until I was in my mid 20s mostly because I wasn't sure of this balance or where I fit, and even so I've been very critical of Catholic practices.
This is why I am not surprised, and am pleased, that John is still trying to figure himself out. This is a difficult question for to choose one faith is to abandon others. It's hard to be a Catholic and Hindu at the same time. This is also what worries me about college students who come to school full of a faith they have inherited from their parents but which they have yet to question (because after all questioning is sinful).
What worries me more about the debate between rationality and religion is this, though.
With science we can reach some notion of agreement as to appropriate methods, how to measure or establish truth, and we can reach some common understandings of what the natural and social world are about. Post-modernism throws some of that out (and I think gave food to religious folks to chastise the sciences). But in the end most science is still positivistic.
The debate then turns to positivist science vs. faith based religion. Positivist science is often about the pursuit of governable laws of nature and thus theories and paradigms that are then destroyed through falsification. Religion however is based on faith, the positive belief in an unproven supernatural idea that somehow gives us our moral and ethical codes. Positivist science evolves through falsification and doubt, religion uses those doubts to reify faith and only becomes destroyed when it is replaced by a new, and more popular, religion.
But let's assume the science v. religion debate were to end with religion as the clear victor. Assume that mankind has lost faith or become cynical about science and has returned to faith as the source for it's understanding of the world.
Then what?
The question than would becomes- which faith? Which notion of God or the supernatural is superior? Which should decide our values and our politics? Whose faith would win out?
Because even if we believe that religious beliefs are handed down by up-high, their practice is left to hands of mankind who remains trapped between notions of good and evil, and often with out the clearn understanding of which is which.
Ironically, it is perhaps the very debate between science and religion that allows those of faith to continue their individual quest to understand God.
For me there is a divide between the spiritualist and the religious. The spiritualist wants to develop a closer spiritual relationship with God, a more personal relationship in which they feel touched by the spirit of God. It is mostly emotion and feeling. The evangelical movement did a great job of sellling itself on this.
The problem here is that generally, we're thinking people. The state of bliss or grace with God is often difficult to rationalize or understand, and we are thinking creatures.
Thus religion allows us, through rituals, teachings, extensive study, to try to rationalize our relationship with God. The problem with this, and I think for most folks who go to Church, that it gets a bit boring and complex- it distances one from the spirit. Most Catholics probably fall into this funk.
Combining both the spirit and the religious is a difficult balance which includes that between your personal relationship with God and your exterior relationship with society or a sub-group of society that practices your faith.
Trying to find out where you fit isn't an easy one. I didn't return to Catholicism or even get confirmed until I was in my mid 20s mostly because I wasn't sure of this balance or where I fit, and even so I've been very critical of Catholic practices.
This is why I am not surprised, and am pleased, that John is still trying to figure himself out. This is a difficult question for to choose one faith is to abandon others. It's hard to be a Catholic and Hindu at the same time. This is also what worries me about college students who come to school full of a faith they have inherited from their parents but which they have yet to question (because after all questioning is sinful).
What worries me more about the debate between rationality and religion is this, though.
With science we can reach some notion of agreement as to appropriate methods, how to measure or establish truth, and we can reach some common understandings of what the natural and social world are about. Post-modernism throws some of that out (and I think gave food to religious folks to chastise the sciences). But in the end most science is still positivistic.
The debate then turns to positivist science vs. faith based religion. Positivist science is often about the pursuit of governable laws of nature and thus theories and paradigms that are then destroyed through falsification. Religion however is based on faith, the positive belief in an unproven supernatural idea that somehow gives us our moral and ethical codes. Positivist science evolves through falsification and doubt, religion uses those doubts to reify faith and only becomes destroyed when it is replaced by a new, and more popular, religion.
But let's assume the science v. religion debate were to end with religion as the clear victor. Assume that mankind has lost faith or become cynical about science and has returned to faith as the source for it's understanding of the world.
Then what?
The question than would becomes- which faith? Which notion of God or the supernatural is superior? Which should decide our values and our politics? Whose faith would win out?
Because even if we believe that religious beliefs are handed down by up-high, their practice is left to hands of mankind who remains trapped between notions of good and evil, and often with out the clearn understanding of which is which.
Ironically, it is perhaps the very debate between science and religion that allows those of faith to continue their individual quest to understand God.