Bigthink - User Ideas Feed

Re: Is Scientology dangerous?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:28:58 +0100

The main thing I notice both in the comments on this question and in the responses is a broad and generalized attack on organized religion, referring to any organized religion as a "cult" Perhaps it is because I am a Christian, but I never believed my religion to be a cult. In my church, our pastors encourage the congregation to question anything we are told about religion and to come to our own conclusions about Jesus Christ, God, and the Bible. This is the case for nearly every church I've ever been too, we are given ideas to build off of, and are expected to question them before we either accept or reject them. I also know many Christians who disagree with one or more aspects of their denomination or faith. To my mind, a cult is a group that brooks no discussion of its beliefs or practices, doubt is bred out of the followers and questioning is discouraged. I thought a trademark of a cult was to demand absolute blind acceptance of every aspect of the group. It seems narrow-minded to classify any organized religion as a cult, simply because it has set beliefs and practices that are based on an unknown higher power.

As for the question at hand, I don't think scientology is dangerous, just vaguely ridiculous. (If rich people want to give their money to a religion created by a science fiction writer, well, it's their money.)

Re: Re: How do we improve the education system?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:56:58 +0100

I don't think it's a matter of pouring money into the problem, unless the money is being spent to hire more teachers and create smaller classes.

I recently graduated from high school and am now attending a liberal arts university, and I can say with absolute conviction that the classes I learned the most from, both in high school and college, were discussion based courses. Yes, America needs more comprehensive math and science classes, but we can't neglect the need for a broad-based liberal arts education that begins at a young age.

Imagine, rather than feed kids facts about a subject, we invite them to discuss it and come to their own conclusions. We don't read them Shakespeare and tell them what it means, we train them from a young age to interpret the work on their own and to discover their own interpretation. This method could work in maths and sciences as well, as long as kids are given a thorough grounding in the ideas of logic. We could create a generation of free-thinkers, a group that was taught as children to question anything they were told, to look for new solutions, individual, solutions to problems. The possiblities would be endless. Think of the Greeks, who simply by studying logic and philosophy discovered all the information they needed to build a steam engine.

Re: Who are you?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:28:44 +0100

I am a citizen of the world, trying to find my place in it. I have spent my first semester in college in discussion classes meant to expand my view of the world and of the ideas that exist in the world. After that experience, I have decided that I want my whole life to be an extension of that process of learning and discovering who I am.

Who am I? I have no idea, but I'm working on it.

Re: Should people/groups resort to violence to solve social and economic problem

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:22:49 +0100

Violence is generally counterproductive to any goals that a revolutionary group has. Revolutionaries fighting for economic equality or freedom of their people lose respect and sympathy from the wider community when they resort to violence. Consider our own country: Martin Luther King Jr. was a man who fought justly and peacefully for the civil rights of African Americans, and he is remembered as a great leader who did great things for our country. Then consider Malcolm X, another civil rights leader preaching a very different approach. He is remembered much more controversially and is generally considered to be much less effective than Martin Luther King.

That said, when a group is pushed down long enough, eventually they will rise. And if they are deprived of enough rights, if their voices are ignored, then they will see no option but to react violently. When governments brutally repress their people, sometimes violence is the only way to create any sort of statement.

"And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed." - The Grapes of Wrath-