Christian Tolerance

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

and in that you are wrong!
how was giving his definition of religion as belief in a god "shortsighted" when he specifically defines what he is saying and says that it is only if you extend religion into atheism that you can be correct.

Atheism means without gods, North Koreans have a god. His name is Kim Il-Sung.

If religion is defined as the belief in god or gods and they believe he is a god then under that definition it is a religion.

Is it so hard to get a dictionary and look up the definition of religion ? Or are you happy to assume it means whatever you want it to mean ?

Which would involve a different changed definition

Google, wikipedia and the oxford dictionary would tend to disagree with you.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Yes and its also officially democratic, north koreans are officially allowed to travel wherever they like and officially everyone in NK enjoys a high standard of living. Oh and officially theres religious freedom.

Oh yes and officially I'm a Catholic. (Unless i've been excommunicated)

Actually, it is officially a socialist republic - much like the USSR was comprised of a number of Soviet Socialist Republics. You can check the DPR Korea's official web site for a little more info. Here they actually describe themselves as a "socialist independent state". It is your choice to believe half the crap or not.

Socialism can mean different things to different people. For example, it can mean that republics are still subordinated to a single party (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) such as the USSR. In the case of DRPK, I'm sure they would lean towards the some sort of Marxist-Leninist understanding, where civic virtue just so happens to be always in line with the will of the Leader.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, it is officially a socialist republic - much like the USSR was comprised of a number of Soviet Socialist Republics. You can check the DPR Korea's official web site for a little more info.

If I try and go to that website here I get a colourful page from the police warning me I could be in a lot of trouble for trying.

Yes I know they're officially a socialist republic but they're also officially democratic. Technically they can 'vote', even though there's only one candidate.

wikipedia wrote:

North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Is it so hard to get a dictionary and look up the definition of religion ? Or are you happy to assume it means whatever you want it to mean ?

PDN DEFINED it himself! no dictionary is needed.

Google, wikipedia and the oxford dictionary would tend to disagree with you.

It does not matter what agrees or disagrees. If PND says "I take religion to mean belif and the only way you can be right is if you change my definition to include atheistic religions" then that is that!

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Yes and its also officially democratic, north koreans are officially allowed to travel wherever they like and officially everyone in NK enjoys a high standard of living. Oh and officially theres religious freedom.

Oh yes and officially I'm a Catholic. (Unless i've been excommunicated)

You are still skirting the issue! PDN supplied his own definition. It makes no difference whatever any official definition is.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

PDN DEFINED it himself! no dictionary is needed.

I wasn't aware that PDN's personal definitions officially overrule the rest of the world. When did this happen ? How did I miss this amazing turn of events ? :pac:

Does my personal definition of 'religion' now officially overrule the rest of the world ? Because I'm pretty sure if I stated it here I'd be taking a long vacation from the Christianity forum.

You know ISAW someone else on another thread on this forum likes to use his own personal definitions for things, according to him the definition of evolution is "pondslime to mankind!!!:eek::o:p given nothing but time and chance".

Is that definition of evolution acceptable to you ? Shall we inform the rest of the world that they are wrong ?

Here's some definitions of religion. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why they're wrong so we can inform the writers.

dictionary.reference.com wrote:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

merriam-webster.com wrote:

Religion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

And of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Actually you know you can edit wikipedia ? Why don't you go there and edit the definition and let the rest of the readers know that they've been defining it wrong ?

It does not matter what agrees or disagrees. If PND says "I take religion to mean belif and the only way you can be right is if you change my definition to include atheistic religions" then that is that!

Religion means belief ? I've no problem with that at all. Belief in god, gods, the supernatural, juche, rebirth, karma, respect etc.

Article on the subject: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html

And a US website explaining why they classify Juche as a religion.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html

And a Christian Evangelist writer, Thomas J. Belke has written a book describing Juche as the newest world religion, with "more adherents than Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism or Zoroastrianism" (JUCHE: A Christian Study of North Korea's State Religion, Publisher: Living Sacrifice Books, Bartlesville, OK; published July 1999. Available here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0882643290/qid=936367568/sr=1-1/002-3678181-5600061

As well as many other titles.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

You are still skirting the issue! PDN supplied his own definition. It makes no difference whatever any official definition is.

I see in the Creationism thread your arguing with JC. I'm sure he'd love to hear that his definition of Evolution is fine and it makes no difference what the official definition is.

In fact I do believe you corrected him on this point more then once. Strange, does this 'self definition' only work for the word 'religion' ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

So there we have it folks, despite all the protestations to the contrary over on A&A, at last an atheist has admitted that atheism is a religion.

Hitchens and Dawkins both pursue their cause with zeal and conscientious devotion - so it is a religion.

See what happens when people try to have their cake and eat it.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Yes I know they're officially a socialist republic but they're also officially democratic.

The name of the state is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Yet it is officially recognised as a socialist state as outlined in their constitution redrafted in 2009.

Article 1

The Democratic People 's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist state representing the interests of all the Korean people.

I can't see anywhere that it officially considers (or considered) itself to be a democratic state. Of course the constitution does make mention of certain democratic rights - democratic centralism and "monolithic leadership with democracy" - but this is as a consequence of their socialist status (not a description of their governmental type) and always subordinate to it.

Anyway, I think that you make some valid points. Considering the bizarre stories that are often associated with the two Kims (the dear (departed) Great Leader and The Dear Leader) I can understand why you think that it is a religion. (I open to the possibility that it is.) However, I don't see anything in either men (and their policies) that couldn't be adequately described by the term "cult of personality".

cyberfitnessgur

Christainity is very tolerant and loving.

I think your confusing tolerance for acceptance.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So there we have it folks, despite all the protestations to the contrary over on A&A, at last an atheist has admitted that atheism is a religion.

Oh good I'll be popular over there now

Hitchens and Dawkins both pursue their cause with zeal and conscientious devotion - so it is a religion.

Doesn't Hitchens consider himself an anti-theist ?

Not that the above bothers me in the slightest since Dawkins or Hitchens could come out tomorrow and proclaim belief in any type of nonsense. It makes no difference to me.

Devotion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Devotion, devotional, or devotee may refer to:
Religion:
General
worship
prayer
devotional song
Christian
Anglican devotions
Catholic devotions
Devotional medal
Devotio Moderna — Christian religious movement of the Late Middle Ages
Bible study — called "devotion" or "devotional" by some Christian denominations.
Hindu
Hindu devotional movements
Bhakti — devotion to a particular deity (Vishnu or Shiva)

wikipedia wrote:

Atheism, in its broadest definition, is the absence of theism, viz., of belief in a god or gods. The degree to which one can be considered an atheist while simultaneously being an adherent of a sect of a traditionally monotheistic, polytheistic, or non-theistic religion is the subject of ongoing theological debate[citation needed]. Some people with what would be considered religious or spiritual beliefs call themselves atheists; others argue that this is a contradiction in terms.

See what happens when people try to have their cake and eat it.

I see your ignoring my argument as well as the US state department, several of the worlds dictionaries, encyclopaedias and two different religious websites as well as several writers and experts on the subject. All who consider juche a religion.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The name of the state is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Yet it is officially recognised as a socialist state as outlined in their constitution redrafted in 2009.

Fanny I think we have a slight miscommunication. Its 'officially' democratic in the way it pretends to have rule by the people.

There are many forms of democracy, socialism is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms

Like the USA is officially a Republic, a democratic republic.

Here's some interesting 'facts'. The latest election up there was carried out on 8th March 2009.

The main political parties up there are;
Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland
Workers' Party of Korea (Chŏson Rodong-dang)
Korean Social Democratic Party (Chŏson Sahoeminju-dang)
Cheondoist Chongu Party (Ch'ŏndogyo Ch'ŏng'u-dang)

The Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland won all the seats with 100% of the people voting for their candidates in each area. Although one has to remember that all the above parties are actually just branches of the Workers party. So while 'technically' there are different parties, they are all under the same umbrella group.

The turnout was 99.98% and Kim Jung-Il was elected with 100% of the vote. I would have thought he'd have gotten 120% this time.

I can't see anywhere that it officially considers (or considered) itself to be a democratic state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea wrote:

The Politics of North Korea take place within a nominally democratic multi-party system within the framework of the official state philosophy, Juche, a concept created by the founder of the North Korean state, Kim Il-sung, and his son and successor as leader, Kim Jong-il. In practice, North Korea functions as a single-party state. It is widely considered to be a de facto totalitarian Communist dictatorship[1] and the Economist Intelligence Unit, while admitting that "there is no consensus on how to measure democracy" and that "definitions of democracy are contested", lists North Korea in last place as the most authoritarian regime in its index of democracy assessing 167 countries.

Anyway, I think that you make some valid points. Considering the bizarre stories that are often associated with the two Kims (the dear (departed) Great Leader and The Dear Leader) I can understand why you think that it is a religion. (I open to the possibility that it is.) However, I don't see anything in either men (and their policies) that couldn't be adequately described by the term "cult of personality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#Examples_from_totalitarian_regimes wrote:

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Eternal (formerly Great) Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Great (formerly Dear) Leader" Kim Jong-il.[4] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[4] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism."[4] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult, and are being taught that Kim Il-sung "created the world"

Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was used as a logo on television broadcasts[12] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'[13]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov’s personality cult...had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."

What about Il-Sungs supernatural abilities, supernatural birth and death ? The Great Leader created the world you know

Heres a very short summary from http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/north_korea_myths/

Kim Il Sung and his wife were bravely leading the heroic struggle against the Japanese from mountain hideouts on the border between Korea and Manchuria when Kim Jong Il was born. At his birth--on Mount Paekdu, Korea's highest and most sacred peak--a double rainbow arched over the family's log cabin, a new star appeared in the sky and a swallow flew overhead to announce that a great general had come into the world. When Kim Jong Il was three and a half, his father personally fought and defeated the Japanese, marched into Pyongyang and liberated Korea.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

There are many forms of democracy, socialism is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms

Like the USA is officially a Republic, a democratic republic.

That is a fair point. Perhaps we are splitting hairs. I contend that NK is officially a socialist state, not a democratic state. I've previously noted that on paper this includes certain democratic liberties. However, a socialist republic need not be democratic.

monosharp wrote: »

Heres a very short summary from http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/north_korea_myths/

Kim Il Sung and his wife were bravely leading the heroic struggle against the Japanese from mountain hideouts on the border between Korea and Manchuria when Kim Jong Il was born. At his birth--on Mount Paekdu, Korea's highest and most sacred peak--a double rainbow arched over the family's log cabin, a new star appeared in the sky and a swallow flew overhead to announce that a great general had come into the world. When Kim Jong Il was three and a half, his father personally fought and defeated the Japanese, marched into Pyongyang and liberated Korea.

Pure fantasy, of course, but I don't see anything there that suggests deification. To me that is still classed as cult of personality.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a fair point. Perhaps we are splitting hairs.

Agreed.

I contend that NK is officially a socialist state, not a democratic state.

Agreed but socialism is not a form of government, its an economic system. When I said 'officially' its a democratic state I was referring to the fact it holds 'elections' and 'officially' the power is in the hands of the people.

Socialism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_republic wrote:

Most theories assume widespread democracy, and some assume workers' democratic participation at every level of economic and state administration, while varying in the degree to which economic planning decisions are delegated to public officials and administrative specialists. States where democracy is lacking yet the economy is largely in the hands of the state are termed by orthodox Trotskyist theories "workers' states" but not socialist states[2] using the terms "degenerated" or "deformed" workers' states.

I've previously noted that on paper this includes certain democratic liberties. However, a socialist republic need not be democratic.

But a Republic means the people (at least some of them) choose their leaders democratically.

But yes we are splitting hairs here.

Pure fantasy, of course, but I don't see anything there that suggests deification. To me that is still classed as cult of personality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

Kim Il-Sung self-developed the Juche idea and established a cult of personality so pervasive and entrenched that North Koreans frequently ascribe "supernatural" qualities to the late leader (even though Marxism rejects the supernatural and paranormal, seeing it as a form of false consciousness and an inadequate explaination for phenomena). North Korea officially refers to him as the "Great Leader" and he is designated in the constitution as the country’s "Eternal President".[24] Kim Jong-Il succeeded his father in 1994. North Korea officially refers to him as the "Great Leader" or "Dear Leader".

http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/event/nkorea_nuclear/general_04a.htm

The deification continued even after Kim’s death. His body is preserved ‘for all eternity’ at the Presidential Palace in Pyongyang, while his authority remains enshrined through the title ‘Eternal President’, the supposed apex of the ‘bequest rule’ system. Thus, Kim Il-sung’s eternal authority serves to justify Kim Jong-il’s one-man rule. Although it is arguable that Kim Il-sung’s reign cannot be ‘eternal’ after all, it is still too early to tell for sure.

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm

He had to fabricate stories that his forefathers were anti- Japanese fighters and deify himself in order to make North Koreans believe him to be a man of great personality.

The North Korean authority went to every length to deify Kim ill-sung as the progenitor the Kingdom by designating 97.7 Kim's birth year(1912) and date(April 15) as the Proto 'Juche' year and 'Taeyang(great sun)day.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Juche#Deification_of_Kim_Il-sung

The distinct characteristic of Juche ideology is its religious or pseudo-religious character, which is based upon the deification and mystification of the late Kim Il-sung. Without understanding the religious characteristics of this thought, one cannot understand why and how for three years after the death of Kim Il-sung, political rule was conducted based upon the instructions of the deceased leader without having an official election for a new leader, and diplomats were appointed and sent in the name of the deceased Kim Il-sung.

The deification of Kim Il-sung lies at the heart of Juche ideology, which results in practices characteristic of religion. His birthplace and sites where he conducted his activities are holy grounds that are destinations for North Koreans to make their pilgrimages. His portrait is hung on the wall of every household and people begin each day by reading his words. Reflection meetings are held on a regular basis, where people can repent their wrong doings and unfaithful thoughts and behaviors based upon Kim’s words as the sacred text. Based upon the deification of Kim, North Korea is characterized as the chosen nation, and North Koreans are educated as chosen people who have a mission to “liberate mankind.”

http://www.rickross.com/reference/nkorea/nkorea48.html

North Koreans are taught to worship Kim Jong Il as a god. In a manner unique among nations, the North exerts extraordinary control through deification — a cult ideology of complete subservience — that goes beyond the "Stalinist" label often used to describe the newly nuclear North.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Agreed but socialism is not a form of government, its an economic system. When I said 'officially' its a democratic state I was referring to the fact it holds 'elections' and 'officially' the power is in the hands of the people.

I believe that I have referred to it as a Socialist Republic already. I was remiss to simply call it a socialist state previously. Incidentally, I have started a thread over in the politics forum that might clear this up.

monosharp wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/event/nkorea_nuclear/general_04a.htm

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Juche#Deification_of_Kim_Il-sung

http://www.rickross.com/reference/nkorea/nkorea48.html

Interesting. I don't deny that people have deified him or that this has been aggressively encouraged. Yet all of the links you list either mention personality cult or pseudo-religion.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. I don't deny that people have deified him or that this has been aggressively encouraged. Yet all of the links you list either mention personality cult or pseudo-religion.

Fanny, now we are most certainly splitting hairs.

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

Whats the difference between a religion and a psuedo-religion ? One is mainstream, the other is not.

Pseudoreligion,, or pseudotheology, is a generally pejorative term applied to a non-mainstream belief system or philosophy which is functionally similar to a religious movement, typically having a founder, principal text, liturgy and faith-based beliefs.

Right now I think most people would consider Scientology a psuedo-religion, give it 100 more years and 10 million more followers then suddenly it'll be a religion.

I really don't want a banning and please take this in the way its meant, I am not comparing the Great Leader to Jesus Christ or Buddha or Muhammad, but do you really think that many religions founders/leaders don't fit into the definition of "cult of personality" ?

You don't need to argue with me about the differences, I know them and I don't consider them one in the same.

I'm simply trying to point out that many of the terms we are using are simply derogatory and subjective.

If a religion is one your dislike and its not mainstream its a cult/psuedo-religion.
If (forced) hero worship is someone you dislike or you consider 'evil' then its a cult of personality.

Look at Obama for example, I don't know about at home but here in Korea they've really jumped on the bandwagon. Overnight there were hundreds of 'learn English by Obamas speeches' books. But we like him so hes a 'hero'.

Stalin however was evil so he was an example of a cult of personality.

Why do you disagree for example with this website ?
Adherents.com: National & World Religion Statistics - Church Statistics - World Religions
http://www.adherents.com/

Here is their list of the top 20 religions (by size) and heres their explanation of why they consider juche a religion. http://www.adherents.com/largecom/Juche.html
Out of curiosity, juche is number 10 in the world, what other religions there so you consider 'not-religions' ?

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion*see below (Religious preference)
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

*Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious).

recedite

prinz wrote: »

...and just what are you basing the levels of peace and tolerance on? Is it the assassination of politicians? The murder of journalists? Hate crime murders? A Nazi-style white power underground movement? The forcing of authors to go into hiding? I'm just going on Sweden here by the way.. as you mentioned Scandinavia...

I see those troublesome swedish fundamentalists are at it again, and now bringing their violence over here....
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0309/waterford.html

prinz

recedite wrote: »

I see those troublesome swedish fundamentalists are at it again, and now bringing their violence over here....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8558022.stm;

Check the link and I'll come back to it

recedite

You're quick anyway!

prinz

recedite wrote: »

I see those troublesome swedish fundamentalists are at it again, and now bringing their violence over here....
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0309/waterford.html

recedite wrote: »

You're quick anyway!

What is your point?

recedite

Admittedly I was being a bit sarcastic, but to explain ; mostly the offences you mentioned seem to be perpetrated against the apparently liberal, tolerant and mostly agnostic Swedes by ultra religious elements.
Just thought I'd mention it seeing as it is now topical again.

prinz

recedite wrote: »

Admittedly I was being a bit sarcastic, but to explain ; mostly the offences you mentioned seem to be perpetrated against the apparently liberal, tolerant and mostly agnostic Swedes by ultra religious elements..

Olaf Palme - where's the ultra religious connection?, Anna Lindh - again I'm failing to see the ultra or any religious element... Stieg Larson's case - nothing to do with religion at all, far right nazi-types : not long ago Sweden was the world's largest producer of nazi-orientated literature and propaganda. Can you link any of the things I mentioned to religious elements? No, you cannot.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Atheism means without gods, North Koreans have a god. His name is Kim Il-Sung.

i don't accept the point but...
How does assuming Kim Il song is a God and believed to be so by millions prove your point about tolerance of homosexuals?

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

i don't accept the point but...
How does assuming Kim Il song is a God and believed to be so by millions prove your point about tolerance of homosexuals?

It doesn't matter that you don't accept the point. You have been proven wrong.

PDN made a point a few pages back where he claimed North Korea was an atheist state and was intolerant to homosexuals etc and that this was not due to religion.

North Korea however is easily the most religious state in the world.

p.s > Its Kim Il-sung (김일성) not Kim Il song (김일송). It might sound similar to you but I guarantee you to Koreans its very different.

김일성 Kim Il-Sung
김일상 Kim Il-Sang
김일숭 Kim Il-Soeng
김일승 Kim Il-Seong
김일송 Kim Il-Song

And thats only half of their vowels.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Fanny, now we are most certainly splitting hairs.

I don't believe so. Given that I'm undecided if it is an ideology, a religion or a pseudo-religion, I think it not without significance that all the links mentioned make specific claims.

Anyway I was half-thinking of emailing the Juche Idea Study Group of England to see it they can answer the question - Is Juche a religion? I'll have to set up an account that doesn't have my name in it, so I may not bother.

monosharp wrote: »

Whats the difference between a religion and a psuedo-religion ? One is mainstream, the other is not.

I'm unsure, tbh. I've not been able to find a satisfactory definition beyond a wiki article. But on a personal level, I reckon that the number of adherents are of secondary importance to things like metaphysical and eschatological doctrines.

The figure 19 million you quote sounds awfully close to the most recent population figures. It seems that whatever Juche is - a religion, a pseudo-religion or a State ideology - it is one that you can't not be part of. I guess that it there isn't the equivalent of countmeout.ie over there.

monosharp wrote: »

Right now I think most people would consider Scientology a psuedo-religion, give it 100 more years and 10 million more followers then suddenly it'll be a religion.

As neither of us will be around to see if you are correct, I can't see much point in speculating.

monosharp wrote: »

I really don't want a banning and please take this in the way its meant, I am not comparing the Great Leader to Jesus Christ or Buddha or Muhammad, but do you really think that many religions founders/leaders don't fit into the definition of "cult of personality" ?

Just like I don't deny that a pseudo-religion has close commonalities with a religion, or that the Pope shares a disturbing resemblance to the Emperor in Star Wars, I also don't deny that the person at the centre of a cult of personality will share certain traits associated with religions figures. But a cult of personality has a specific definition. Think Mao. Think Stalin. Think Hitler. Think the Kim's.

monosharp wrote: »

Stalin however was evil so he was an example of a cult of personality.

While I think that "evil" often goes hand in hand with a cult of personality, the definitions previously provided are a little more specific than what you have suggested.

monosharp wrote: »

Why do you disagree for example with this website ?

I'm unsure what that question has to do with this thread. You and I are already off on a tangent here, I don't think it helpful to get into a discussion about the accuracy of statistics.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe so. Given that I'm undecided if it is an ideology, a religion or a pseudo-religion, I think it not without significance that all the links mentioned make specific claims.

And all the evidence I have given that points out that, at very least, there is serious religious tones in it ?

Do you consider Scientology for example a religion ? Or Islam ? If you consider them religions, then could you point out the differences you perceive with them and juche ?

Anyway I was half-thinking of emailing the Juche Idea Study Group of England to see it they can answer the question - Is Juche a religion? I'll have to set up an account that doesn't have my name in it, so I may not bother.

LOL. Ok I know this mightn't be funny to you because you don't have to put up with it but thats the 5th or 6th time I've clicked on a link in this thread (usually posted by you) that has sent me to a Korean Police warning website. (They block any and all websites to do with North Korea)



Many more times and theres gonna be lads bursting through my windows to take me off to a small room for a chat about my interest towards the neighbours

The figure 19 million you quote sounds awfully close to the most recent population figures. It seems that whatever Juche is - a religion, a pseudo-religion or a State ideology - it is one that you can't not be part of. I guess that it there isn't the equivalent of countmeout.ie over there.

Yes the standard accepted figure for the current population is around 23 million. (Just over half of the population of the Seoul (and satellite cities) metropolitan area.

But surprisingly there are/is other religions up there, to an extent.

Korean shamanism being the biggest, if you consider that a religion of course.

The next being Cheondoism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheondoism
Which even has its own political 'wing' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheondoist_Chongu_Party

These two (Shamanism and Cheodoism) are probably the most accepted/acceptable up there. There are 'supposed' to be Buddhists and Christians but I think they are just there for show for foreigners.

Buddhism/Christianity is seen as more incompatible with juche then the previous two.

But yes, people who claim the 19 million figure make estimates based on the population. Its probably quite accurate in fairness, the vast majority of escapees find it very hard to let go of juche.

When Kim Il-Sung died there were thousands of North Korean escapees in the South who were in complete shock and denial, some even crying. And they are the ones who escaped and knew what kind of evil they had escaped.

As neither of us will be around to see if you are correct, I can't see much point in speculating.

OK, but right now I very much doubt either you or I would use the word 'religion' to describe it. But according to the rest of the world, officially, is it a religion or a psuedo-religion ? I'm sorry to say but it seems to be winning that battle. Its recognised as a religion in most(?) countries today.

But a cult of personality has a specific definition. Think Mao. Think Stalin. Think Hitler. Think the Kim's.

Yes and I wouldn't argue that Mao, Stalin or Hitler formed religions. I don't think Nazism was a religion.

But Kim and Juche is not Hitler and Nazism. There are many differences which I have tried to highlight.

I'm unsure what that question has to do with this thread. You and I are already off on a tangent here, I don't think it helpful to get into a discussion about the accuracy of statistics.

I'm not talking about their statistics, I'm talking about their reasoning behind calling juche a religion.

recedite

prinz wrote: »

Olaf Palme - where's the ultra religious connection?, Anna Lindh - again I'm failing to see the ultra or any religious element... Stieg Larson's case - nothing to do with religion at all, far right nazi-types : not long ago Sweden was the world's largest producer of nazi-orientated literature and propaganda. Can you link any of the things I mentioned to religious elements? No, you cannot.

I could mention Salman Rushdie, Lars Vilks and Kurt Westergaard.
One thing they all have (had) in common is a liberal outspoken outlook.
This seems to attract the ire of both the Islamic extremists and the far right extremists. These two groups both seem to have increased in European countries a generation after liberal immigration policies were introduced, unfortunately.
At least we can agree that Christianity is not to blame for this one.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

It doesn't matter that you don't accept the point. You have been proven wrong.

I think you may consider some study of logical and critical thinking.
I just pointed out I don't accept the exception. But the exception does not in any case prove the rule!

PDN made a point a few pages back where he claimed North Korea was an atheist state and was intolerant to homosexuals etc and that this was not due to religion.

WHERE did he make that claim? You say he did, have you a reference?


Here is what PDN said:

This thread is about the toleration of homosexuals - ie has Christianity promoted or hindered freedom of homosexuals in the community at large to do what they want.
in message 91
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64628560&postcount=91
This thread is about the toleration of homosexuals - ie has Christianity promoted or hindered freedom of homosexuals in the community at large to do what they want.
[/quote]



and in message 136 I drew this to your attention:
PDN is referring to CHRISTIANITY and toleration and explains that be religion he is referring to belief in Gods and the ONLY WAY you could be right about a claim toleration by religions in history is to CHANGE THE DEFINITION to include non theistic or atheistic groups!
[/quote]

North Korea however is easily the most religious state in the world.

According to YOUR definition of religion as opposed to PDN definition of toleration specifically referring to CHRISTIANS as opposed to any other form of religion whether or not it has god.

You see the "logic" point is that even if North korea was "religious" in the God sense
(which as I say I do not agree with) it still would not prove that religion fosters intolerance of homosexuals.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

WHERE did he make that claim? You say he did, have you a reference?

And this is your problem, you came into this thread without reading it, just glanced at the title and started ranting against what you 'thought' I was saying.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64559884#post64559884

PDN wrote:

Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?

I asked him for examples and he gave many, one was North Korea.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64571876#post64571876

and in message 136 I drew this to your attention:
PDN is referring to CHRISTIANITY and toleration and explains that be religion he is referring to belief in Gods and the ONLY WAY you could be right about a claim toleration by religions in history is to CHANGE THE DEFINITION to include non theistic or atheistic groups!

Because you didn't read the thread.

PDN is the one who brought up the argument saying that atheist countries were/are intolerant of homosexuals. I am answering his assertion.

According to YOUR definition of religion as opposed to PDN definition of toleration specifically referring to CHRISTIANS as opposed to any other form of religion whether or not it has god.

Unless an 'atheist' country is now defined as a 'non-christian' country then no.

You see the "logic" point is that even if North korea was "religious" in the God sense
(which as I say I do not agree with) it still would not prove that religion fosters intolerance of homosexuals.

1. I have given pages of evidence and pages of links to good sources backing up my argument. You have given nothing but your own opinion and denial. You haven't argued against the evidence I've presented you have simply ignored it.

2. I am not trying to prove that North Korea is religious ergo religion fosters intolerance of homosexuals. Right now all I am trying to make you understand is that North Korea is not an atheist country. PDN is the one who made the link between atheist state and intolerance of homosexuals.

prinz

recedite wrote: »

At least we can agree that Christianity is not to blame for this one.

Which begs the question why you were posting about it in the first place on a thread about Christian tolerance..