Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 December 2010

Lourdes/Movies to do not watch if something else to do

I spent 90 minutes of my unique life this afternoon watching Lourdes. For the sake of the words, I would like once in my life to visit this place to describe and study on the spot various (surely) unique phenomenon. But I will prefer a journalistic approach to a hymn to irrationality. Otherwise, the industry of holy stones and abuse of innocence and lack of culture are, beside a source of income, an example projected as worthy to be followed. Irrationality is like a pandemia and you don't need movies pretending to be neutral. You need to know the meaning of the words and to take seriously your role as an intellectual. Otherwise, there will be people to believe that multiple sclerosis might be cured (miraculously) by prayers and only prayers.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 14 August 2009

Religion

as a matter of choice or rejection of a social laziness of thinking. It is all about your own choice. To take off.

Friday, 7 August 2009

Time to end discrimination

in a haredi girls' school.

Apparently, the subtelties of discriminations are endless - the compulsory Askenazi accent, for example, the separate entrances and the plaster wall. And why in the last two years nobody had the gorgious idea to oppose such hard to qualify situation?

Monday, 3 August 2009

Health Bills Allow Some a Religious Exemption


Maura Reynolds
August 3

One of the central tenets of the health care legislation under construction on Capitol Hill is a mandate that every American be protected by some kind of medical insurance. There’s one exception to the mandate, though: people opposed to buying health coverage for religious reasons.
The emerging bills in both the House and Senate include language patterned on an existing “religious conscience” exemption to laws requiring workers to pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare. What’s not clear is whether the exemption, originally designed to apply only to the Old Order Amish, might be used by members of other religious groups — or those who just say they are — in order to evade the insurance mandate.
It’s probably not a large group: There are only between 200,000 and 250,000 Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites (with similar beliefs) in the United States, for instance. But data is thin. The IRS and the Social Security Administration say they don’t collate records on who files for the tax exemption or what religious affiliations they claim. Christian Scientists, who believe in spiritual healing rather than traditional medicine, might be able to file for exemptions to the taxes and to the health insurance mandate, but church officials and lobbyists declined several requests to discuss the matter.
According to the Web site of the Church of Christ, Scientist, believers do not object to all medical care or to purchasing health insurance: “Every Christian Scientist makes his or her own financial and health decisions,” the site says, including when and how to seek medical treatment and whether to carry health insurance.
In Massachusetts, where the Christian Science church is headquartered, the mandatory state health program offers a religious conscience exclusion, and about 9,700 people applied for it in 2007, the most recent year with complete data. The state program has penalties for those who apply for the exclusion and wind up visiting the doctor or the hospital anyway — and, two years ago, about 700 people who applied for the religious exemption were denied and fined, according to Robert Bliss of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.
There is no similar penalty in the proposed language of the federal health care mandate. A senior Democratic aide involved in drafting the Senate bill, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said no member of Congress has pushed for penalties because the number of religious objectors are few and there has been little history of others improperly claiming the exclusion, at least for Social Security and Medicare taxes.
The tax exemption dates to 1965, when Congress included it in the revised Social Security Act (which also created Medicare) to settle a decade-long dispute with the Amish, who believe in a deep division between church and state. The Amish don’t object to paying taxes, and they routinely pay their income, property and other levies to federal and state authorities. But when the IRS began applying the Social Security self-employment tax to farm income in the 1950s — and confiscating farm animals to pay the arrears — the Amish resisted.
Amish farmers argued that Social Security was a form of public insurance, and their religious beliefs prevent them from taking part in public or commercial insurance. Instead, the Amish effectively self-insure within their own community: When a church member needs medical care, for instance, the family pays out of pocket and the church takes up a collection or reimburses them from a common fund.
“The Amish do not believe in accepting government help, and they believe profoundly in taking care of their own,’’ says the Rev. William C. Lindholm, a Lutheran minister and chairman of the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom, which advocates on behalf of the Amish, who rarely venture into public debate.
What the Amish wanted to do, in effect, was opt out of the Social Security and Medicare systems entirely, and after a public backlash over the livestock confiscations, Congress decided to permit a narrow exemption for religious sects “opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance.”
To get the exemption, taxpayers must provide evidence they are members of a qualifying sect that has been in existence continuously since 1950. As Roberton Williams, a tax expert at the Urban Institute, put it, “People who try to set up their house as a church, well,that doesn’t fly.’
My Question: You could admit an adult is more or less aware of the consequence of its decisions, whatever the basis. The problem is what to do with the children who, because of the religious choices of their parents are unable to be benefit of a healthy treatment?
See also:

Sunday, 28 June 2009

Short trip in the religious world

Are human feelings compatibles with the religious world? The question in itself is quite silly, but it is an answer: no. Gitai's Kadosh is a delicate - and well worked demarche from the point of view of the images: long, with outlined contrasts between light and dark marking the various episodes of the movie - incursion into the haredi world of the ultra-orthodox groups from Jerusalem. A world when getting married is just a matter of following the decisions of the parents, without having any sense of the reasons of why two people should stay together, but for having children and getting a certain sense of normality. It is no place for love, for nuances, for understanding. And, even when it is, as in the case of the couple of Meir-Rivka, the social pressure and the authoritarian decision of the parents are prevailing, without any opposition from the part of those directly concerned and seriously affected. The strangest aspect of this dimension is the fact that, many of them are having opinions and making judgements about a life they hardly know. And the ignorance is passed on from a generation to another. With the rare exceptions when people simply leave the group and look for their chances outside, as far as possible.

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Everybody

wants to be a Cohen. Or how names could be popular beyond religions.

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

Permanent emergency

Instead of focusing on what should be done now and have a point, it is more useful to create a permanent state of emergency. They are always very important issues at stake, so why to do not be there. As the reservoir of emergencies - some of them real - is endless, and the disponibility for real action and involvement limited, they will be plenty of occasion to avoid responsibility.

Thursday, 25 December 2008

Religion and purpose

The last Gallup poll made in 84 countries in 2007 found out that only 2% of all respondents worldwide said they were secular or nonreligious.

"As researchers have long noted, religiosity tends to be highest among poorer, less educated populations -- providing a source of hope where it is most needed. As these data indicate, religion can also provide a much-needed sense of direction for those to whom life might otherwise seem futile".




Middle Ages nostalgia

The Pope talked about salvation of the Planet...What will be next? A new crusade? Thanks to the brilliant minds which made the Internet and the evolution of technique possible, he could call for a mass mobilization easier than in the Middle Ages times.

Sunday, 23 November 2008

Religion, out of public schools!


Religious education should be, in my humble opinion, be kept out of school's gates. If the school is public, of course, because in a private one, parents have the possibility of the "right" choice, according to the vision of theirs children education (even, sometimes, for some kids, it could be useful to be helped to escape an eternal brainwashing).

But, when public education/funding is involved, the children have to receive the basic information in order to make them good, socially integrated citizens, meaning able to make choices while respecting the alterity of the others.

What about morality, I might be asked? You don't need religion to share empathy with the others, to respect the laws and, in general, to do not harm your neighbors. In fact, religions, all of them are stating the exceptional status of their followers. You simply have to be taught about the value of the individuality, the way in which your freedom don't have to harm the freedom of the other, in Rousseau's words. You don't have to be good only because all we are the creatures of a god, but you have to understand the basics of the human behavior, the limits and punishments, the limits and benefits of social co-existence. If your fellow human is suffering, instead of praying for him it's better to move yourself to find out what you can really do for helping him. And the examples could continue.

Not necessary to look after theological arguments, simply look around you and think with your free mind.

Atheist? Oh...Jew????

It's not a basic curiosity. Not too many people, after asking these two consecutive questions - sometimes with a deep anger or an utterly disgust - are going directly, after meeting me, to the first library, or look after helpful information on the Internet (like this one - links for the curious provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Jew, helpful for those doubting any cognitive dissonance in my short answers "yes" to both questions).

In fact, me, I don't use to ask people what their religion is. Usually, I can have my own conclusions, but only if it is relevant for the general topics. I can easily discuss about weather or daily life without jumping to religious - more or less theological arguments.

But, I'm often faced with this kind of questions - unfortunately - and when my simple answer is "Atheist Jew", I'm often regarded as a strange person, in the very bad sense of the word.

In fact, from this point on, any other discussion, excepting the analysis/trial of my choice, is dead. I either have to be regarded with deep compassion ("oh, what happened with your life?") or deep aggressiveness ("why do you need to know other fellow Jews, in fact you don't have to call yourself a Jew", it's one of the softest appreciation I can get).

Atheism is a bad brand. I could be considered a communist (impossible!), a person without principles (not corresponding to the reality). Plus, my knowledge about Judaism is scrutinized carefully, mostly by people who know approximatively 10% of what I'm knowing about.

No, I don't feel any inferiority complex and I don't suffer of being excluded; my place is not with narrow minded, intolerant and aggressive people. I don't have any plans to change myself or to reconsider my very personal existential options.

And no, I don't hear voices, I'm not killing people, goats etc., I'm not suffering for any addictions, I wasn't abused in my childhood, I'm not zoophile, pedophile etc. and I'm very monogamous. "Sounds" normal ????