|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:21 pm
Should any religion be allowed to exclude you from it? I thought that religion was a belief and a faith you had, so what gives the head of this religion the ability to tell you that you can;t be a part of it? Does that make sense?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:20 pm
well someone can have faith in whatever they feel like. if one has faith that the head of a religion knows better than one, and thus has the right to threaten and excercise excommunication, then it should be a part of that religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:19 pm
Natures_Aphid Should any religion be allowed to exclude you from it? I thought that religion was a belief and a faith you had, so what gives the head of this religion the ability to tell you that you can;t be a part of it? Does that make sense? Religions are remarkably different than faiths or beliefs. Religions involve the practice of a set of beliefs within a community of like-minded individuals. As such, if one member of said community violates the beliefs of the community, it is perfectly fine to ostracize or excommunicate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:40 am
Organized religion is a social structure, as well as a faith-based structure. There are generally specific guidelines laid out that a member of an organized religion will already know. If a member of that religion then violates the tenets of that religion, either repeatedly and without remorse or in a dramatic enough fashion, they are displaying a disrespect for that religion and its deity. While fellow members of that religion cannot summon the deity to punish the one who violated His/Her requirements as set forth by that religion, they can make clear in their social structure that such an individual is not, and should not be considered, part of the community.
In a circumstance that has reached the point of excommunication, the person being excommunicated is not the primary concern. That person has already done something or things to make it clear that he or she is no longer concerned with the laws of the religion he or she has violated. At that point, the concern of the religion must be for its other members. To continue to shelter a person who has done things contrary to the moral and social tenets of that religion would imply that such behavior is not as repugnant as, in fact, it is. The potential implications, and consequent damage to the religion, can only be imagined.
To be sure, excommunication should be the last option against a "sinning" person. Penance and temporary separation are both options that may (depending on the beliefs of the religion) be pursued first. But if someone clearly has no remorse, and either no wish to be reconciled with his or her faith or no wish to change his or her behavior, the religion cannot ignore the situation, for fear of the effect such behavior will have on others in that religion. It cannot simply hope the situation will improve. If the person has shown a complete lack of the morals defined by that religion, excommunication (from the point of view of the religion) may be necessary.
Now, as far as I know, the only groups that practice excommunication are the Catholic church and the Mormons. Are there any others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:47 pm
Syzygis Now, as far as I know, the only groups that practice excommunication are the Catholic church and the Mormons. Are there any others? I am not sure of all the denominations that do excommunications, but I know a few do, though the TERM may change from group to group. Jehovah's Witnesses call it disfellowshipping. And, you know, Amish have that Shunning thing. (actually, this article is pretty interesting.) As for whether they are "ethical" I think, personally, it depends on what it implies. I admit, I do not understand religions in which their "excommunication" process does not include a path BACK. As I believe one of God's main purposes is to help us to become better people, how can He do that if you are kicked out with that level of hopelessness to come back into the fold?! I don't know. That's the way I think of it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:27 pm
"You're out of our religon!"
"Oh yeah? Well I'll start my own religon!"
"Fine then."
"Alright."
You do that."
"I will"
And that's how different religons began.
But seriously though; I don't like the fact that if someone says something you don't like, you can just kick them out of your religon and ignore them. Of course, this isn't always bad, but you always have the risk of having someone in the seat of power who doesn't know best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:52 am
Syzygis If a member of that religion then violates the tenets of that religion, either repeatedly and without remorse or in a dramatic enough fashion, they are displaying a disrespect for that religion and its deity. While fellow members of that religion cannot summon the deity to punish the one who violated His/Her requirements as set forth by that religion, they can make clear in their social structure that such an individual is not, and should not be considered, part of the community. Well said. This is the prime function of such an act, or at least this is how it should be used. It's to keep the integrity of the existing community in place. It could be said that oathbound religions have a form of 'excommunication' by branding the oathbreakers as warlocks or some equally derogative term. There might also be less formal excommunications in other religions as well as ones modivated by less than religious reasons (aka, social blackmail). Rettu makes another good point about how these sorts of actions can create new sects. I'm not sure if excommunication is really the driver for this, but general disagreement with a particular tenant certainly is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
