Once in a very great while, I wax poetic about philosophy and theology.

[Veilex]

I came across a fact that I found rather remarkable and disturbing, all at once. There are roughly 4200 different religions the world over. Most, if not all of those, believe they are the "one true" religion... that makes for roughly 4199 highly conceited holier-than-thou outlooks... and actually the one "right" religion doesn't escape that "highly conceited holier-than-thou" moniker simply by being right.

Add to the equation that so many of those religions are focused on “spreading the word” of their particular belief… and ostracizing those “heretics” (hairy ticks?) who choose not to believe or follow “the good word”. Yet, when you truly analyze the religion’s prime tenets, you can deduce that the religion is A) based off ancient traditions that are not relevant to modern traditions, B) Is not intended to be used to further division, ostracization, or hate. Yet, so many use religion as an excuse to do exactly that.

Then you have idiots like myself, who served in the military to protect other’s rights to enjoy whatever religious freedom they choose…and apparently, the freedom to ostracize and demonize other religions and non-fellow believers.

Some might look at that and think “What’s the big deal? I just want to be around like minded people” or “Well my religion/holy text says…”

Problem is, we are a very social species. We NEED people… each and every one of us. Regardless of how you think we were brought into this world; through the sculpting of some higher being, or through the grace of a spiritual being, animal, or evolutionary process, we are designed to need each other.

So, when you ostracize someone, or demonize someone, you’re committing an act of hatred against that person… because you are denying them something essential to living.

So, for clarification and simplification, ostracization is anti-life.
Inclusion is pro-life.

If you doubt me, just think of your favorite activity group, and how they make you feel.

Now imagine life without that inclusion… even better, imagine the very next time you involved yourself with them, they rejected you completely.
There you go.
That feeling right there…
THAT is anti-life.

So, what is the take away message here? It should be pretty obvious at this point I think:
Don’t hate.
Don’t exclude.
Be inclusive.

Life is too short for anything else

[rug]

1. You're a Buddhist!

[Veilex]

12. Hah!

I just might be at that

[rock]

2. I like the way you think

Wax on! And welcome! (Just in case you haven't been yet.)

[Veilex]

4. Been around nearly since DU started, but never been welcomed. Thanks :)

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. Disagreement can be respectful.

Even if you think you're right and the other person is wrong, that's not a license to be a jerk to them. Even if you form a like-minded group, have other friends from different perspectives also, and learn from them.

[Veilex]

5. Exactly!

We can be civil in our disagreements without the need for bombastic vitriol.
In fact, it only benefits us to have civil discourse with those we don't necessarily agree with... it helps us refine our own beliefs.

[cbayer]

6. Welcome to the religion group and thanks for such a thoughtful and thought-

provoking post.

I understand the power of ostracism, but do you not think there may be times when ostracism may be the only choice? Is it possible that some people really are demons and deserve demonization?

[trotsky]

7. Well I guess if in your judgment someone is evil, then they are.

And clearly then, they deserve the worst treatment possible. Because they're demons, you see.

Fucking A.

[mr blur]

13. Not in the real world, no, it isn't possible.

[cbayer]

14. Are you saying that ostracism is never appropriate or that there are not

people that should be demonized irl?

Or something completely different.?

[Curmudgeoness]

15. Is there any instance in your mind

when ostracism should be used with any respect to religion, which is what the OP is talking about. We are not talking about serial rapists and ax murderers in this thread.

And I am not sure that "demons" and "demonization" are terms that should be used in a discussion about people who are non-believers, since is appears that you are linking the two. I don't believe that is your intent.

[cbayer]

16. No, not specifically when it comes to religion or religious beliefs.

I just think that ostracism may be the only workable solution for some individuals.

Who related demons and demonization to non-believers? Certainly not me.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. "Then you have idiots like myself, who served in the military to protect other’s (sic) rights"

"to enjoy whatever religious freedom they choose…and apparently, the freedom to ostracize and demonize other religions and non-fellow believers."

Really? You served in the military "to protect others rights"?

Bullshit. Unless you are in your 80's and served in WWII, no member of the military has, since then, protected my or any other Americans rights.

I'm sorry to say this, but that wasn't your mission, regardless of what they told you. If you are a Korean War/Viet Nam/Gulf War/Iraq/Afghanistan Vet, then you sure as hell weren't protecting rights. Well....OK...the rights of Big Oil to extract resources from under a foreign country, but other than that...

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, meh.

[Veilex]

11. Unfortunately I tend to agree that the Military is used more to enshrine coporate power...

Though fighting for the rights of Americans is always an implied possibility. Either way, I joined when I was young and didn't know better.

[mr blur]

9. Interesting that you think you were an "idiot" for serving in the military,

I happen to agree with you (unless it was in WW2), but I suspect for different reasons. I'm not sure why you needed to point out your "service", sounds pretty exclusive to me.

[Veilex]

10. For the most part, mentioning my service was a flow-of-thought comment...

kind of a "I can't believe I volunteered to protect the likes of this" kind of thing.

[Curmudgeoness]

17. I thought the reference to military service was appropriate.

The point was being made that the OP's reason to serve was the protection of freedoms and rights of the citizens. (Let's not get into whether this is true or not, because it is often the reason kids join the military---sadly.) But now, the OP is saying that the only rights that seemed to be protected were the rights of the believers, while it is still acceptable to "demonize" the non-believer.

I get it.