What’s Trump being paid by his pal Putin?

Every human society has to begin with a basic faith in the well-being of its members. This faith stems from either the goodness of a supreme being looking out for that group or the inherent goodness of the people making up that society.

Through that faith, hope develops that a better future is in store for that group, whether in an afterlife or in a future where the members or their children have happier lives. And that hope leads to caring about the members and looking out to make sure that all the members have the things they need.

This is called charity. Faith, hope and charity are not just the building blocks of a religion; they are the building blocks of every society.

Jerry Moore had no right to tear apart someone’s faith. It was only done to display what he considered a superior logic or thought process. It was egotistical and unwise.

We should never remove a person’s faith unless there is an absolutely necessary reason (such as faith that will lead to the destruction of people or a society). In this moment in our society, we really need to bolster everyone’s faith rather than tearing it down.

John Pratt

Gouverneur

Johnson Newspapers 7.1

Recommended for you

(10) comments

rdsouth

Real faith is not that fragile. Rights are relative. One person's right is another's obligation. If I owe you money you have a right to repayment from me (and only me) and I have an obligation to pay you back. So how is Jerry Moore obligated to not use the press to speak about religion?

rockloper

WDT where did fake holmes comment go and my reply to it?

Newsjunkie39a

Considering the atrocities committed in the name of religion over human history, subjecting religious beliefs to scrutiny is a healthy exercise. One can emerge from it with a better sense of self, and of his fellow man. While I found Mr. Moore’s discussion somewhat laborious, I applaud him for his effort, and hope that he has inspired others to consider their own beliefs. To consider any religion’s tenets as above criticism as taboo is short-sighted, and puts in mind the zealots who maim and kill “in the name of god”.

Holmes -- the real one

Well said. [thumbup]

rockloper

Jerry Moore is engaging in a topic that for too long has been taboo - that of criticizing religion. The number of atheists has doubled in the last decade although still a minor portion of the population. That doesn't include closet atheists of which includes more and more clergy.

Your first sentence john doesn't even make sense. Secular morality is concerned with the well being of society, you don't need any kind of faith. There is not a single position or belief in life that one can't justify through faith. Because of that, faith is not a reliable path to truth.

Your bible is full of intolerance, injustice, and cruelty and you get this warm and fuzzy feeling from it.

Qudos to Jerry Moore for addressing this issue. There are very few in his position who are willing to tread in these waters. It's amazing how little it takes to get a believer to feel butt hurt.

In this moment in our society, we really need critical thinkers not blind faith. There's another clown in Gouverneur, who I guess forgot how to read, that I'd love to hear a comment from. You'd think he'd have plenty of time to read since his dive is closed.

I really love the caveat in the last paragraph which in essence says it's ok to have faith in my religion but not yours.

I choose to make the most of my life and not pretend there is something better after my ashes are spread.

Holmes -- the real one

[thumbup]

Holmes -- the real one

" It was only done to display what he considered a superior logic or thought process. It was egotistical and unwise."

Well, …. yes. This is probably as accurate a summary of the approach to discussion presented in Mr. Moore’s “series.” It should be apparent to all by now that Jerry Moore likes to hear himself talk.

That's certainly not to say that debating such issues is a bad thing. Rational and respectful debate of points of view regarding religion is a very good idea -- when it leads to clarification, mutual understanding, and respect.

Having said that, I am wondering what use any belief might have if it is so flimsy that it could be torn apart by another person stating his opposed point of view. The editorial of a publication is much like a bully pulpit (the irony of which seems to be lost on Mt. Moore), but there certainly exists the potential for discourse which leads to insight on both sides.

Otherwise, such a use of that “bully pulpit” just leads to more rancor, bitterness, and division. The antidote to that outcome is simple listening. If you, John Pratt of Gouverneur, take the time to ponder what Mr. Moore and those who responded to his series had to say, it might ignite a desire to examine your own beliefs. That’s a way to glean a positive outcome.

In the end though, it really comes down to what people DO, not just what they say.

rockloper

[thumbup]

Newsjunkie39a

Well said, O Real One!

Holmes -- the real one

Now you have me laughing.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.