Agnostic.com

2 0

From another posting

“ Everyone should be religious, and I don’t care what the religion is.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

This is a very telling remark about the nature of religion. If one looks ’religious’ up in almost any dictionary, along with the obvious references to actual religions you also get

treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship."I have a religious aversion to reading manuals"
◦ synonyms: ◦ scrupulous, conscientious, meticulous, sedulous, punctilious, zealous, strict, rigid, rigorous, exact, close, unfailing, unswerving, undeviating; Morefussy, pedantic, fastidious, nitpicking, finicky, finical 
"pay religious attention to detail"

◦ antonyms: ◦ slapdash ◦

.......Now it is possible to be devoted and scrupulous about anything - ask your psychiatrist . We do not like people being devoted about worship but that is another area - yes it IS closely tied to religion.

    Really the ONLY thing that we do not want any person to be religious about is the CONCLUSIONS that religions make about so many things 
We as non theists on this definition should want everyone to religious because that is the best way to get the maximum in any field of human activity. Howevr we do not want anyone to be religious in the other senses of the word and especially not be told what to believe or do. 

I know it is playing with words and accepting alternative definitions is always difficult but we should be very careful about what we actually reject . This is purely an attempt to reject religious CONCLUSIONS whilst evaluating the value of religions.

Mcflewster 8 May 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Eisenhower's administration pushed the notion that being "religious" = being a "patriotic" or "good" American. While it was publicly presented as irrelevant what religion was involved, it was pretty much nudge-wink white Anglo-Saxon protestantism. In those days Catholicism was considered highly suspect, and certainly no one would tolerate a "weird" religion like Islam or Buddhism. Even relative public tolerance for such things was still over a decade away.

This false equivalency was based on the notion of "godless communism" as the main bogeyman and existential threat to "American values". Communism has been so thoroughly conflated for so long with atheism (and, in fact, a particular, imagined "god-hating" form thereof) that to this day, it's still a widely held misconception. Doubtless this obsession with Communism (or really any unfamiliar or impure in terms of capitalism and therefore scary political idea) was a lingering product of McCarthyism.

The Law of Unintented Consequences kicked in with a vengeance from there and fundamentalist Christianity became a sort of litmus test in the minds of its own adherents for being a god-approved capitalist and Good Citizen. Beginning in the mid 1950s and building steadily through at least the end of the 20th century, the evangelicals become more a political than a religious movement -- though always of course with overt religious rationalizations.

Today I think the evangelical star is fading and current ideological polarization on the part of the religious / Republican complex is being partly driven by a realization of this impending loss of hegemony.

So I would say Eisenhower's statement about religion was not about being thorough or diligent apart from dogma. Eisenhower's administration was the source of "in god we trust" on coinage, "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. It was very much about being thoroughly religious in the primary, "god-fearing" sense.

The important point in competing with religions for people's mode of thinking, is "Do you think Atheism , agnosticism, Humanism should be religious [in the second meaning of the word] also?"

@Mcflewster I don't think religious is an adjective to apply to any of those things, regardless of the meaning. People will misconstrue it as "just another religion" which is already a canard we have to deal with.

@mordant I agree that we do need a definition of what a religion is. It should be one based upon the nature of the conclusions that people reach. Obviously non scientific.

Surely he made an observation that many religious people are diligent (using the second sense of the word), which is still possible to verify today, but THEN he inferred form that there was a god. That inference was his mistake since we know that people can be amongst other things diligent (and the rest) without believing in god. There should be no need to tell people there is a god just to make them diligent(and the rest).

0

Had not this line of of thinking before...of the separate meanings of the word....have used it in many cases, but of course, if someone just ask "are you religious?" I would likely say "no" .....if ask " do you take care of your tools?", I might well say "religiously". ....thought provoking post.

The interest to me is not in whether you are a believer or non believer but in how religions are started. If someone spends a lot of energy convincing you religiously( second meaning) that they seem to know what they are doing , then of course they will gather a lot of followers. To me, the thing they have not been religious (second meaning) about, are the the aspects of science that are important in drawing proper and lasting CONCLUSIONS e.g evidence. There lies bigotry and dogmatism - difficult to remove

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:348028
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.