Religious Representation: Is it working for you? Is it working for them?

The topic of this thread is simple and can be stated in a matter of questions:

When you think of someone who represents your religion to the rest of the community, public, world, etc., do you think of a specific person or name, a group of people, or unnamed groups (unaffiliated extremists, for example)? If so, then who?

Do you think whoever you thought of for the above question is a good representative, or do you blame them for any negative perceptions other people have on your religion?

Think of somebody very well-liked in the public eye, or somebody really famous that you know or is confirmed to be a follower of your religion but isn't very public about it. Do you think that person is a prime example of your religion's believers? Why?
Do you think said person should be more public about your religion and be more of a representative of your religion than simply a popular person who just happens to be a believer in your religion? Why?

Think of a bad representative of your religion, one who is infamous or something of the sort. Why do you think the representative is bad?

Also, do you think your religion needs a representative? Is the lack of a representative working for you specifically or do you consider it a problem?

--------------------------------------
Now think about another religion, preferably one you disagree with or even dislike. Why do you disagree with or dislike that religion?

Who do you think is the representative of that religion?
Do you blame that representative for your dislike/disagreement of that religion? Why?

Do you think that person(s) is/are is a good representative, that is, accurately represents that religion and its followers?


You don't have to answer each question. This isn't a survey. You can simply use the questions as a jumping off point for your point.
Also, for the sake of this thread, whether or not you think Atheism, Agnosticism, or any other 'skeptic' train of thought is a religion, consider it one, please.

 

Not particularly. And I wish I still had the excellent sources I used to have on this, but this article at least sums up the point: Science and religion have been good friends for a long time. At some point in the last century or so, someone managed to convince everyone that the traditionalist way was to shun all scientific pursuit. As Consolmagno says, there's no straight-up opposition of evolution in the traditional model; as well, "Biblical literalism is a recent development, not traditional Christianity."

I'm a former Catholic, now... undecided, I guess? Although that makes me sound indecisive, which is not the case. Either way, it's a little embarrassing to hear Christians in general speak of a conflict between the two when they were practically the same thing in historical context; and no, I'm not talking about modern Christian pseudo-science. It's only one point, but it's probably one of the big ones everyone thinks of when they think of Christians, and it's sad to see the views abused by Christians and non-Christians alike. I'm really starting to wonder how and why the change came to pass, to the point that I may be incorporating it into my college studies soon.

Really, it's hard to look at it any other way when you start to seriously get into it. So many symbols, parables, and so on are repeated through generations of religions, deliberately or otherwise. Isolated mythologies would make reference to the same ideas or events, such as a great flood or the Giants who lived in the world before man. Of course, I hold with the likes Jung and Campbell on that subject, so maybe that's why it seems so obvious to me.

Yeah they're buttheads :c

As for other groups... I don't believe there's a one I could name that isn't misrepresented in the public eye. Race, sex, religion, politics, etc. are caricatured regularly in various media, because it's apparently more entertaining to read/watch/hear. If you buy into the notions put forth in the public spectrum, atheists all believe that theistic beliefs are delusional magick-man-in-the-sky propaganda which impedes the intellectual growth of man; Muslims are all homicidal maniacs bent on cleansing the world of all but their kind; and so on.

Funny thing, a lot of eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism have comparatively tame representations in media, least as far as I know. At most they're portrayed as spacey and distant. If you've studied anything of the beliefs or spoken to studied practitioners, it's kind of hilarious in that regard.

 

It's a difficult set of questions for mee, since my religious belief isn't strictly religious, isn't strictly what I believe in 100% and isn't a very commonly known religion.

I label myself as a Daoist, but I don't think i'm a very good Daoist. I don't abide by the diet, or the praying, or other religious service. But belief and faith are in sufficient enough.

I think that followers of the Dao usually make a good job of presenting it, the people are diverse but i've not heard of any cold blooded killers or crusaders from my religion. I wish people could find out more aobut it, but I like it for its obscurity. When people ask what it's about, the laws and so forth I get to state them in my own intrpretations of them. Most major religions can't do that that, you say your Protestant or Catholic, or Muslim or Sikh most people have an idea about what you believe in. I have the advantage of explaining it all to them.

 

I call myself a (very) progressive Lutheran. I have faith in God and Jesus, but as far as the Bible goes, I distance myself a bit from it, because of many (what in my opinion is) ridiculous ideas that are brought up. Out of the two testaments though, I believe moreso in what is written in the New Testament (I believe maybe 5% of the old testament)

Anyhow, because of my belief, I don't really have any people I think to be my leader. Religion, I think, happens on an individual level, and people telling you what to believe and how to believe, I really hate.
I believe I am a good representative for my own religion, because I don't push it onto others, I explain it in a calm matter, and I'm understanding to (most) religious people (except the fanatics)

Fanatics, Extremists or Fundamentalist of any religion, I believe to be a bad representative, because they believe their opinion is the total truth and are ignorant to other perceptions and views on things. They are, in my opinion, Ignorant ******bags.

I don't really dislike any religions, I think people should be entitled to believe what they want to believe, and I have nothing to say about it.
However, religions that still, to this day, suppress people, I disagree with, and I think they are moronic, but that goes back to the fundamentalist part of it again.

 

The closest thing to a religion that I follow is Discordianism. There are only a few characters who expressed Discordianism, but they have all been better than I will be. The greatest representative of my beliefs is Robert Anton Wilson. He is the greatest representative because he founded the religion and lived it throughout his life. He came to mind immediately. I do not know of any negative representatives. It is hard be a bad representative of a doubt based religion. Everyone who is not in the religion represents it badly, you could say.

It is working well, but the voice is not loud enough. That is a sad thing. It depresses me slightly. Radical philosophy is always ignored by majorities.

I dislike all organized religions to a great degree because they encourage belief in something that you cannot prove, unto killing over it. Moralizing rules that you claim an inability to understand is the height of folly, and most wars are waged in their name.

I believe that all components of a religion represent it fully. All representatives of an organized religion make up that religion. Even if a god or set of gods exists, the religion is made up of people believing that they should do things that they are unable to explain. People represent their own interpretations of the world, and I blame them for their interpretations and hate them if they believe them completely. The extremists in any group are an example of the deepest roots of their beliefs. If you dislike the extremists in a belief system, then the belief is faulty. When you consistently arrive at a bad conclusion, you need to consider that your premise may be false.

There is no such thing as a good or bad representation of an idea. If it is a different idea, then it is a different idea. If it as extreme example of the idea, then it still applies. I can say that a lot of people do not represent anarchism well, but this is because they simply are not expressing anarchism, or even trying. There is a difference between going too far and ignoring the point.

Comedians make mockeries of religion constantly. Are they representing religion inaccurately? Not entirely. What of the people that they are mocking? Not entirely. What about the people throwing bombs while reciting the words of Gandhi? Probably. The line is not so thin as it is made out to be.

 

I'm not very imaginative so I'm straight-up answering some of the questions. To clarify, I believe in a mix of two beliefs: LaVeyan Satanism and Roman Catholicism. One wouldn't imagine they'd work together, but it's a matter of pulling my values from each religion. For example, I don't believe in God - but I don't worship myself as a god, either. I go to a Catholic church, but I also believe in the idiocy of sheep behavior. And I don't make sacrifices if you were going to ask that. lol.

When you think of someone who represents your religion to the rest of the community, public, world, etc., do you think of a specific person or name, a group of people, or unnamed groups (unaffiliated extremists, for example)? If so, then who?

The most well-known public figures would be the Pope (Bendict 13?) and Anton LaVey.

Do you think whoever you thought of for the above question is a good representative, or do you blame them for any negative perceptions other people have on your religion?

Well... As figureheads, each is going to carry representations and uphold values that may or may not be favourable. I think that overall each has done a great job of being a model for the religions, but at the same time they can set too exact of an expectation for followers.

Also, do you think your religion needs a representative? Is the lack of a representative working for you specifically or do you consider it a problem?

I think a lack of representation would be better simply for the sake of not being stereotyped into either one or the other of my beliefs. Most consider that it can only go one way or the other. I think personal interpretation and value is more important than a centralized teaching of one exact model of your religion.

Now think about another religion, preferably one you disagree with or even dislike. Why do you disagree with or dislike that religion?

Let's talk about Baptism in the South. My main issue with Baptism is that it is so strict in controlling the church and its members. It's to the point where you go out to party with some friends and you have prayer before and afterwards. It controls lives and even those who don't agree with things are immediately shut down.