Which is your religion more likely to embrace: Individual Liberty or Social Cohesion?
825679
atheists, I suppose, embrace individual liberty\n\nI can only speak for myself
729626
A uniting belief in a god, spirituality, or way of life.  \n\nWHY MANY DOUBT\nThat Religion Can Unite Mankind\n“LOVE your neighbor.” (Matthew 22:39) This basic rule of conduct is acclaimed by many religions. If such religions were effective in teaching their members to love their neighbor, their flocks would be drawn together and be united. However, is that what you have observed? Are religions a force for unity? A recent survey in Germany asked the question: “Do religions unite people, or are they more likely to separate them?” Of the respondents, 22 percent felt that religions unite, whereas 52 percent felt that they divide, or separate. Perhaps people in your country feel much the same way.\n\nWhy do many have little confidence that religion can unite mankind? Perhaps because of what they know from history. Instead of drawing people together, religion has often pushed them apart. In some instances, religion has been the cover under which the most dreadful atrocities have been committed. Consider some examples from just the last 100 years.\n\nInfluenced by Religion\nDuring the second world war, Roman Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans were at one another’s throats. Both groups claimed to follow Jesus, who taught his followers to love their neighbor. Yet, their conflict led to “one of the most appalling civilian massacres known to history,” as one researcher put it. The world was aghast at the death toll of more than 500,000 men, women, and children.\n\nIn 1947 the Indian subcontinent was home to some 400 million people—about a fifth of humanity—mainly Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. When India was partitioned, the Islamic nation of Pakistan was born. At the time, hundreds of thousands of refugees from both countries were burned, beaten, tortured, and shot in a series of religious massacres.\n\nAs if the foregoing examples were not disturbing enough, the turn of the century brought to the fore the threat of terrorism. Today, terrorism has put the whole world on alert, and many terrorist groups claim to have religious ties. Religion is not viewed as a promoter of unity. Instead, it is often associated with violence and disunity. Small wonder, therefore, that the German newsmagazine FOCUS compared the world’s major religions—Buddhism, Christendom, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Taoism—to gunpowder.\n\nInternal Squabbles\nWhile some religions are at war with one another, others are beset by internal squabbles. For instance, in recent years the churches of Christendom have been split by ongoing debates on matters of doctrine. Clergy and laity alike ask: Is birth control permitted? What about abortion? Should women be ordained as priests? How ought the church to view homosexuality? Should a religion sanction war? In view of such disunity, many wonder, ‘How can a religion unite mankind if it cannot unite even its own members?’\n\nClearly, religion in general has failed to be a force for unity. But are all religions marked by divisions? Is there a religion that is different—one that can unite mankind?
80340
Personaly nothing, in fact I think soceity would become a better to live in fo we were to become a secular nation.\nNo more people using religion to push their ideology onto others, or trying to hinder peoples lifestyle or dictate how one should live or can not live.
1122972
Individualism is what makes america, America.  We are free to like what we want to like, say what we want, express our opinions, worship the God we want to (or not), speak the language we want to speak, etc. etc.  It's when Government steps in and says, "No, you can't do that," or groups of people get together and say, "You're WRONG.  We're RIGHT.  You now have to think like we do," when everything goes awry.   Why don't they just come out and say, "You're all morons and you don't know what's right for you, so we're going to decide."\n\nIndividualism is ok for america and should be emphasized.  Keep in mind, individualism is not selfish or egotistical, it does not encourage rape or murder.  It just means, let me be me without government interference or societal judgment.
952512
Democracy, because a theocracy could and would EASILY take away many of the freedoms we take for granted.\n\nGoodbye to questioning the government and saying the government does something wrong against humanity in its policies. If it's religious doctrine, it's ok. Goodbye to worshipping the religion you believe in because as many religions as are out there, the chance of being in a theocracy where your religion is in command is fairly slim. Kiss women's rights goodbye. According to some religious doctrines, women aren't good for much besides submission to their husbands without question and having babies.\n\nKiss a lot of things we enjoy in this country goodbye if we let religion take precedence over democracy, because if we decide religion is what's the most important thing besides protecting our individual rights, we'll have a theocracy and then nobody but those in power will be free. Democracy means we choose what we want, not be told what we need.
1150523
Individuality versus state control I think. I read it a long time a ago.
157408
My answer would be yes due to the Fact that the founding fathers understood the value of human rights thus the "Declaration of Independence" was born. The reformation in reality was the reforming of the peoples mind and the understanding of what "SELF EVIDENT" meant. One Nation Under God, "indivisable" meant you could nt be seperated from the devine.. "In him we live, breath, move and have our existance, with liberty and Justice  for all...these liberties where granted by the supreme creator of the universe, and our founding fathers along with Martin Luther knew this, they preached it, practiced it, and most of all, LIVED IT....MAY GOD BLESS
443274
it isn't.  the country isn't split 50/50 over pedophilia, it isn't split over vigilante killing, it isn't split evenly over whether line-cutting at the supermarket is acceptable.  \n\nwhat you are talking about is the prominence given to issues that are undecided.  the simple reality is that individual behaviors are informed by social mores.  social mores are developed through multiple means, but in a purportedly democratic society, manifest consensus of opinion is necessary.  what you are referring to is the natural conflict of a society essaying to define the consensus on certain issues where social mores are ambiguous.  in response to the ambiguity and ambivalence, crusaders of a partisan agenda rally support for their cause in an effort to turn the tide.  as this happens on both sides in an ambiguous issue, conflict occurs.\n\nas for the definition of life issue--the force of the conflict results from the fact that many of our accepted values are actually in conflict, and this issue brings that fact into sharp relief.  it's kind of like doing a puzzle and realizing that you have a piece that cannot fit given the way the other pieces have been connected.  quite simply, averring the universal value of any biological entity expressing a particular genetic pattern does not mesh with the value placed upon creating harmony and reducing conflict within a social system (quite similar to the conflict evident around capital punishment).\n\nwhat has happened is that for thousands of years societal systems have insisted on the distinct, sancrosanct "specialness" of human beings in order to increase our survivability, and now we are beginning to learn that we are just a part of a larger system--a system whose survivability vastly exceeds our own in precedence.\nsince most individuals in our society are currently incapable of deconstructing the complex interplay of causality implicit in this theme, they mediate the conflict by relying on emotional judgments--which serves to further heighten the tension.
657254
Capitalism and individualism have improved more peoples' lives than communism ever did.\n\nCapitalism and free markets are not a complete dog-eat-dog competition, and does not make people less inclined towards their fellows. In fact, because free societies also allow for free religious expression, there is also more money donated to charities, more charities and more care for fellow man than seen in any communist country.\n\nIn a free society, free people gladly choose to sacrifice for others. They are individually free to do so.\n\nIn communism, other people decide to sacrifice you for the common good, and because communism is against the concept of individualism, your loss doesn't matter.\n\nI still do not understand the attraction of becoming some slave to the collectivist will, like some expendable worker bee in a hive, like an ant in a nest, like a termite in a colony.\n\nI am an individual. I have worth apart from society. Communism does not recognize that, and that alone makes it evil.
10136
collectively or individually?
640938
I would say yes. The problem would be that "truly good and decent" people can be defined in more than one way. They would need laws demonstrating they respect eachother's varying choices, even if those choices all seem inherently good to each individual member.\n\nAn example would be in cooperative relationships and commerce. Likely these people would cooperate and would need laws or agreements to do so. \n\nOne person may believe their society will be communistic and perhaps act in a manner to fulfill this with truly good intentions, and violate another's capitalistic ideas.\nThey will need agreements on property and privacy as there can be varying approaches that are inherently good, yet conflicting.\n\nI think inherently good people could easily construct the laws needed and they would not have to include such petty laws as we have in societies filled with injustice, inequity and even evil.\n\nGreat question.
635039
Wow, that's tough.  Is your assignment to argue that retribution is socially cohesive, or did you come up with this yourself?\n\nThis is what I can think of:\n\nRetributive justice is based on the idea that criminals should be punished for undermining social "harmony" or "balance."  Therefore, we can't dole out retributive punishment before we first have a definition of what is social harmony or balance.  Social harmony and balance can be defined through laws, custom, or religion.  The PROCESS of defining social harmony and balance is socailly cohesive because, to some extent, we must generally agree on what the definition of social order is.  In other words, the PROCESS of accepting and agreeing on laws/customs/religion is socially cohesive.\n\nThe rehabilitation theory of punishment is probably the most socially cohesive because it is based on rehabiliting the criminal so that he can successfully reenter society.
396404
I would whisper in everyone's ear:  Liberty is the key.  Your own decisions about your own life, and how to live it, must be the dominant consideration when you vote.  That's what voting is for.  Therefore, vote for your Liberty.
224146
Social order without education, individual empowerment and individual thinking is a time bomb.\n\nUsually and educated, critically minded population will need much less social or legal support to create social cohesion. Common sense will drive debates and dialogue and communications will prevail. When the instances are not doing their jobs such as not protecting individual rights over lobbyist or politically or social and religious agenda, then chaos sets in. \n\nPeople who do not know how to communicate, that havent leran how to think and take responsibility can then take over the common space and reat chaos.\n\nSocial Order tends to hide real issues. It eliminates nuances along with an indivudual sense of accontability and responsibility and creativity.  Social Order only comes with education and a culture of acceptance of diversity. If social order is imposed without any educations and self empowering programs or legislature, it is only a time bomb.
1085183
welcome to the club sister.  I don't think you have a problem at all.  I think that you are a free thinking and open minded person.  It's when you feel that pressure to conform and be like everyone else and resist it, that you truly begin to gain a greater perspective of reality.  I suggest you read "the herd" chapter from Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil".  This is the book in which the phrase was coined "God is dead".  Don't let that scare you.  What I think he really meant to teach was that organized religion and the God they invent is dead.  He challenges you, in the chapter entitled "the herd", to ask yourself if all these things that people are telling you that "God" has said are indeed from "God".  Or, are they something made up by leaders of church to influence the masses opinions to get a desired social result.  That result is control.  Don't let anyone but God control you.  He wouldn't force control on you.  He doesn't want to control you.  He offers suggestions and you choose freely.  To me though, all this damnation and hellfire are not products of Christ at all.  Christ is like the sweetest friend I have ever had.  I don't live right at all.  I have done bad things in my life.  Yet, he has never left me.  People, on the other hand, have behaved terribly...  and for that matter... so have I at times.  I decided that I would not be controlled by "the herd" either.  People will accuse you of rebellion.  Rebellion it may be, but against whom?  God?  I don't think so...  The "herd", definitely.  I had to separate myself from them, and while it is lonesome at times, it is at least free.  Knowing God should never feel like being in a social or political prison in which you are interrogated and punished.  They're like religious nazis and they have confused social control with God.  Welcome to freedom sister.  You may find groups that you "fit" with...  I never did.  This is the tragedy of the genuine individual.  Perhaps you should start your own "group" on yahoo groups.  If you do, let me know, and I will join.  This topic is certainly worthy of discussion.  Don't feel like you are alone.  There are many, many, people who have went through this...
1126716
Nah. The single rule to be good to others isn't specific enough because one person might consider something to be good while another doesn't, such as abortion. Even if everyone had the same understanding of what is good and what isn't, it still makes more sense to assume god doesn't exist.
52488
Social solidarity or unity, despite cultural differences, makes a culture excellent because it recognizes that there can be unity in diversity.  And this solidarity should be  not just tolerance or passive co-existence (I-don't-harm you-and-you-don't-harm-me type of co-existence) but genuine teamwork type of unity.  This may sound like utopia but for me this would be cultural excellence.