Theology IV

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Likewise man, and the reason I mentioned that part was because I think Buddhism manages what many other walks of life and religious faiths don't do, getting the message across of how to achieve inner peace, especially in the larger monotheist religions that get caught up in webs of intricate rules and can't-do's. At least that's my view of it.

I agree. It's one of the reasons why I'm Buddhist, really. Though many forms of Buddhism can(and do)get caught up into a rather long list of arbitrary dos and don'ts and develop a sense of strict hierarchy like other religions have, original(Theravadan)Buddhism teaches that one should have a fairly healthy dose of self reliance in their practice; and while it's perfectly ok to have teachers whom you trust and rely on to an extent, you would really be going against the grain of the teachings if you took anyone's word for it that something is true if you haven't experienced it for yourself.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I think you're right. Many non-religious do that yeah, rounding up spirituality and religious faiths into one coffin, and dumping it out to sea in the name of reason.
They might be wrong, and it's also counter-productive because what I f.ex. am against isn't the belief in God or Gods, or a spiritual world co-existing with one's material world, but like I explained earlier, the ugly face that rigidly organized religion often exhibits.
It might not seem like it, but I think there's a certain spiritual level in my own life, though I'm still struggling to define it.

Sounds good to me. I've heard a definition of spirituality that I really liked, I forget where, that was much different than what you'd usually define it; it was that the whole point of being spiritual was not to decide what the truth was and, once decided on what was true, to stick to it through thick and thin. It was to ask what the answers were to all of life's big, seemingly unanswerable questions with a sincere heart and mind, and a willingness to hold those hard questions inside of yourself with poise and dignity. That's just one side of the coin, in my opinion, but a very good one to keep in mind, if you ask me. It's saying that there's a nobility to not knowing what the truth is but at the same time being willing to hear it out if it came your way. What they call in Zen "Beginners Mind".

That's where I'm coming from in our worlds wide collection of Theological standpoints.

Along with a bout a million other similar definitions and uses of "deities".

Rules of Linguistics: Synchronicity tops diachronicity; or, usage tops etymology.

My thoughts concerning that, as well.

[D.Sullivan]

Whoops, sorry. Double post.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Coffee, all you really do is to soundly refute the doctrine of the impeccability of the clergy.

Unfortunately, that's not a teaching the Church holds, or has ever held, so all it actually amounts to is one big ad hominem. I see no reason to bother responding to ad hominem. I am quite familiar with debate and argument, I've done it roughly twenty hours a week for the past three years, and all I've seen is fallacy.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god

"Deitas, deitatis" is "godness". That proves my point.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Coffee, all you really do is to soundly refute the doctrine of the impeccability of the clergy.

Unfortunately, that's not a teaching the Church holds, or has ever held, so all it actually amounts to is one big ad hominem. I see no reason to bother responding to ad hominem. I am quite familiar with debate and argument, I've done it roughly twenty hours a week for the past three years, and all I've seen is fallacy.

Which goes to show that you simply don't get it. 'All' I have really been doing is not showing that the Vatican isn't inerrant as a Church guided by a Holy all-knowing Spirit suggests, but to show that the most basic of messages that the figure of Jesus supposedly represents, namely love, is completely irreconcilible with a vast array of actions and teachings by the Catholic Church. That's my point thank you very much.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Coffee, all you really do is to soundly refute the doctrine of the impeccability of the clergy.

Unfortunately, that's not a teaching the Church holds, or has ever held, so all it actually amounts to is one big ad hominem. I see no reason to bother responding to ad hominem. I am quite familiar with debate and argument, I've done it roughly twenty hours a week for the past three years, and all I've seen is fallacy.



"Deitas, deitatis" is "godness". That proves my point.

What do you mean by that? are you saying the Church doesn't think it's clergy impeccable? So, therefore Christianity in and of itself can't be held accountable for the actions of it's members?

I think in many cases the this is true. If the Church didn't actually tell people to go out and bomb abortion clinics, then it's doctrine can't be held accountable for what it's followers may do. But, if I'm not mistaken, we're talking about the Catholic Church here, and when it comes to the Catholic Church, , it DOES preach that it's clergy is nothing but virtuous. According to the Catholics, the only way to God is through the Pope and his Clergy, and if it turns out the Clergy isn't to be trusted, if it turns out they're a bunch of hypocrites, it's actually reflective of a very big flaw in the Church's philosophy itself. Not just it's members.

Besides, if I say the Bible proclaims it to be just to stone an adulteress, and you say that's ok because no one in the Church does that, what I'm I supposed to take the Church to mean, exactly? What exactly is the Church if not it's members nor also it's teachings?

[Coffeehouse]

I couldn't agree more.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

What do you mean by that? are you saying the Church doesn't think it's clergy impeccable? So, therefore Christianity in and of itself can't be held accountable for the actions of it's members?

I think in many cases the this is true. If the Church didn't actually tell people to go out and bomb abortion clinics, then it's doctrine can't be held accountable for what it's followers may do. But, if I'm not mistaken, we're talking about the Catholic Church here, and when it comes to the Catholic Church, , it DOES preach that it's clergy is nothing but virtuous. According to the Catholics, the only way to God is through the Pope and his Clergy, and if it turns out the Clergy isn't to be trusted, if it turns out they're a bunch of hypocrites, it's actually reflective of a very big flaw in the Church's philosophy itself. Not just it's members.

Perhaps you should actually learn something about a religion if you intend to attack it- I'm sure that, as a Buddhist, you've inwardly (or even outwardly ) groaned at some of the nonsense you've heard the ignorant ascribe to Buddhism.

The Catholic Church has never preached its clergy is nothing but virtuous- indeed, many of the institutions and practices of the Church were set up precisely because of the knowledge that the clergy, being human, were as likely as any to fall into sin.

Any Catholic will acknowledge that there have been bad priests, and bad Popes. I believe that the doctrine is that the Church as a whole cannot be led into error on matters of doctrine.

And people can still find salvation and God outside the Church if they fall into the category of those suffering from "invincible ignorance"- this is a specifically Catholic term, referring to those who have not heard the teaching of the Church, or receive it through such a distorted lens as to make it unbelievable.

Besides, if I say the Bible proclaims it to be just to stone an adulteress, and you say that's ok because no one in the Church does that, what I'm I supposed to take the Church to mean, exactly? What exactly is the Church if not it's members nor also it's teachings?

The Old Testament says that- Jesus says precisely the opposite.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Perhaps you should actually learn something about a religion if you intend to attack it- I'm sure that, as a Buddhist, you've inwardly (or even outwardly ) groaned at some of the nonsense you've heard the ignorant ascribe to Buddhism.

Excuse me. You're right, I am speaking out of a certain degree of ignorance. And I stand corrected that the "clergy" was much to broad a statement. But...

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

The Catholic Church has never preached its clergy is nothing but virtuous- indeed, many of the institutions and practices of the Church were set up precisely because of the knowledge that the clergy, being human, were as likely as any to fall into sin.


Any Catholic will acknowledge that there have been bad priests, and bad Popes. I believe that the doctrine is that the Church as a whole cannot be led into error on matters of doctrine.

...when it comes to the Pope, I do believe my point still stands. As far as I can tell - and maybe I'm speaking from ignorance again - the Pope's infallibility makes it impossible for him to give false teachings on faith and morals, though NOT exempt from making mistakes in judgment. Wouldn't that be considered "doctrine"?

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And people can still find salvation and God outside the Church if they fall into the category of those suffering from "invincible ignorance"- this is a specifically Catholic term, referring to those who have not heard the teaching of the Church, or receive it through such a distorted lens as to make it unbelievable.

But it's not cool to be Christian outside of the Catholic Church? is that correct?

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

The Old Testament says that- Jesus says precisely the opposite.

How do you decide which view is correct?

I think Jesus should get the last word on things.

Thanks for your reply, GrayMouser.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

...when it comes to the Pope, I do believe my point still stands. As far as I can tell - and maybe I'm speaking from ignorance again - the Pope's infallibility makes it impossible for him to give false teachings on faith and morals, though NOT exempt from making mistakes in judgment. Wouldn't that be considered "doctrine"?

That the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching, in virtue of his office as Successor to St. Peter, falsehood in matters of faith and morals? Yes, that would be considered doctrine. Doesn't necessarily make him a good fellow. Nor even, for that matter, a good private theologian, as, since you point out, he is not exempt from making mistakes in judgment. The sphere of the doctrine of papal infallibility is sharply restricted.

[inked]

Interesting essay:



Are Religion and Peace Compatible?

by Gerald McDermott

This was the question I was asked to address at an inter-faith gathering. I was the lone Christian speaker on a panel that also featured a Muslim, a Buddhist, and a rabbi.

I started by saying this is the wrong question.

Yes, I told them, we've all heard the truism, "More blood has been spilled in the name of God than anything else." As the poet Sean O'Casey put it, "Politics has slain its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands." These statements inspire us to vow, "Never again! We will work to make sure religion is not responsible for violence yet again!"

But is it true, I asked, that religion has done more than anything else to inspire violence?

Not really, I replied. The fact of the matter is that while this may have been true before the 20th century, it no longer is, after the bloodiest century in human history. Now, we must say, after a sober look at the historical record, that irreligion has done far more to inspire killing than religion ever has. The French Revolution, long before the 20th century, initiated a sad pattern of irreligion persecuting faith.

In this case the persecution was in the name of the so-called Religion of Reason, and turned into a bloodbath. Between 2000 and 5000 priests who refused to swear before the altar of Freedom were executed, as well as dozens of nuns, and countless lay people. Many others died in prison. All told, 18,000 were executed on the guillotine, in the name of revolution dedicated to the extermination of Christian religion.

But this was a drop in the bucket compared to the atheistic totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. In 1999 a team of French scholars published the mammoth tome, The Black Book of Communism, from Harvard University Press, which was the first systematic compilation of the deaths resulting from various communist regimes in the twentieth century. Their research was possible only because of the opening up of archives in former totalitarian states after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.

These scholars found that atheistic regimes killed 25 million people in the former Soviet Union, 65 million souls in China, and 1.7 million human beings in Cambodia. They didn't even bother with the as-yet uncalculated hundreds of thousands of deaths from more recent atheistic regimes-North Korea, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah

These numbers, taken together, dwarf the extent of violence in all of history's religious wars and inquisitions and witch burnings put together. The numbers aren't even close.

So the question ought not to be whether religion and peace are compatible, but whether irreligion and peace can coexist.

And the questions ought not stop there. The next question should be not about religion generally but religions in particular.

Does it make any sense to talk about religion in general? The "great world religions" see the basic human problem differently and have very different solutions. Despite what we often hear, they are not all climbing the same mountain, but different mountains. They don't have the same goal.

For example, they don't even agree on whether there is a god. The Buddha, for example, was for all practical purposes an atheist. He said there were various gods and demons, but that none of them could help us get to where we needed to go. None was a Creator of any sort, or in short what we call God.

Philosophical Buddhists, and philosophical Hindus and Daoists all agree there is no god-that is, a personal Being--and certainly not one who created the world. They see nothing in the same way as do those religions that believe there is a personal god. And even those Hindus and Buddhists and Daoists who do believe in personal gods disagree on the chief god and how to reach that god.

So there is no one thing that all the religions have in common-even belief in a god or higher power-which would be required for us to believe there is such a thing as religion-in-general.

The real question, then, is which religion we are talking about when we talk about so-called religion and peace. For even within religions, there are huge differences. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his Regensburg address, there are destructive and diseased forms of religion, and other forms that are constructive and healing. We Christians must concede that there are diseased forms of Christianity, such as that which captured the holy city of Jerusalem during the Crusades and indulged in a bloodbath of both Muslims and eastern orthodox Christians.

But there was also Martin Luther King's Christianity that taught non-violent resistance to violence, in the name of Jesus Christ, and led middle-class white America to a reconsideration of race. And there was the Christianity of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, who condemned terror and death squads, defending the rights of poor peasants against powerful landowners. For that he was shot through the heart while saying Mass on 24 March 1980.

When we speak of Islam, are we talking about Sufi Islam, which tends toward peace? Or Wahhabi Islam, which suggests that non-Muslims and certain other Muslims should be killed?

And what about Hinduism? Are we talking about the militant brand which denies religious freedom to Muslims and Christians, and sometimes kills them? Or that peaceful and constructive brand of Hinduism that Mahatma Gandhi developed?

A third question we need to ask is whether peace is always the best thing. I suspect that most black slaves in America in 1860 believed that continued peace between a free North and defiant South was a threat to their freedom. And that Jews being held in Hitler's concentration camps in 1944 would not have felt comforted by talk of a sudden peace which would have left Hitler's killing machinery intact.

Or that the thousands of Christians and others being tortured in North Korea today, and perhaps even millions of their oppressed and impoverished fellow citizens, believe that continued peace with Kim il-Sung is not the best thing for their own welfare.

In situations like these, those who call for peace at any price are regarded by victims of murderous regimes as complicit in the evil of those murderous regimes.

Don't get me wrong, I said to this mixed group. I am not saying that peace is bad, and that religion should not make peace. What I am saying is that at certain times and places, when egregious evil has the upper hand, peace is not always the greatest good.

I concluded with five summary assertions:

1. When thinking about religion and peace, we need more critical thinking and fewer simplistic platitudes.

2. We should realize that irreligion can be just as dangerous as religion, and that hostility to religion in fact has been more destructive in history than religion itself.

3. We should ask not about religion in general and peace in general, but rather about which religion and which brand of each major world religion.

4. We should also be asking about which kind of peace. For the wrong kind of peace can sometimes encourage radical evil.

5. As a Christian, I believe that God has planted within each of us a desire for truth, beauty and goodness. But there is also within us an evil self-obsession that is never extinguished. That is why religion is often a mixture of good and bad. It is also why we should distinguish between those religions which recognize that capacity for evil (and so do not kill God's prophets) and those which don't. The religions that acknowledge their own tendency to be corrupted are also those that want to restrict secular government from getting too much power-power that is often used to destroy true peace.

Most of the speakers and the audience that night did not like my suggestions that some religions foment war, and that peace is not always the best thing. Most seemed to agree with the rabbi, who was of a modernist Reform bent. She said she "emphatically" disagreed with my contention that religion-in-general doesn't exist, and insisted that evil comes not from religion but from politics. The Buddhist spoke of world peace that would result from Buddhist principles.

When I objected to the general consensus that conversion should always be ruled out of inter-religious dialogue, and proposed that non-coercive religious persuasion should be permitted, most in the audience and on the panel erupted in anger.

Only the Muslim, who was a Sufi, agreed that evangelism should be allowed. One person in the audience reported, to the enthusiastic agreement of most, that only Christianity tries to convert others. I was the only one to disagree, explaining that Islam and many other religions also proselytize.

This inter-religious gathering was like many others I have joined. They demonstrate remarkable inter-religious ignorance, and sometimes they help dispel a bit of that ignorance. But mostly they illustrate what few seem to realize today, that the world religions point to different gods and teach very different things.


---Gerald McDermott is Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. His most recent books are The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions (Baker Books) and Understanding Jonathan Edwards (Oxford University Press, Nov. 2008).



http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=8976

What do you think of it?

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by inked

Interesting essay:



Are Religion and Peace Compatible?

by Gerald McDermott

This was the question I was asked to address at an inter-faith gathering. I was the lone Christian speaker on a panel that also featured a Muslim, a Buddhist, and a rabbi.

I started by saying this is the wrong question.

Yes, I told them, we've all heard the truism, "More blood has been spilled in the name of God than anything else." As the poet Sean O'Casey put it, "Politics has slain its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands." These statements inspire us to vow, "Never again! We will work to make sure religion is not responsible for violence yet again!"

But is it true, I asked, that religion has done more than anything else to inspire violence?

Not really, I replied. The fact of the matter is that while this may have been true before the 20th century, it no longer is, after the bloodiest century in human history. Now, we must say, after a sober look at the historical record, that irreligion has done far more to inspire killing than religion ever has. The French Revolution, long before the 20th century, initiated a sad pattern of irreligion persecuting faith.

In this case the persecution was in the name of the so-called Religion of Reason, and turned into a bloodbath. Between 2000 and 5000 priests who refused to swear before the altar of Freedom were executed, as well as dozens of nuns, and countless lay people. Many others died in prison. All told, 18,000 were executed on the guillotine, in the name of revolution dedicated to the extermination of Christian religion.

But this was a drop in the bucket compared to the atheistic totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. In 1999 a team of French scholars published the mammoth tome, The Black Book of Communism, from Harvard University Press, which was the first systematic compilation of the deaths resulting from various communist regimes in the twentieth century. Their research was possible only because of the opening up of archives in former totalitarian states after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.

These scholars found that atheistic regimes killed 25 million people in the former Soviet Union, 65 million souls in China, and 1.7 million human beings in Cambodia. They didn't even bother with the as-yet uncalculated hundreds of thousands of deaths from more recent atheistic regimes-North Korea, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah

These numbers, taken together, dwarf the extent of violence in all of history's religious wars and inquisitions and witch burnings put together. The numbers aren't even close.

So the question ought not to be whether religion and peace are compatible, but whether irreligion and peace can coexist.

And the questions ought not stop there. The next question should be not about religion generally but religions in particular.

Does it make any sense to talk about religion in general? The "great world religions" see the basic human problem differently and have very different solutions. Despite what we often hear, they are not all climbing the same mountain, but different mountains. They don't have the same goal.

For example, they don't even agree on whether there is a god. The Buddha, for example, was for all practical purposes an atheist. He said there were various gods and demons, but that none of them could help us get to where we needed to go. None was a Creator of any sort, or in short what we call God.

Philosophical Buddhists, and philosophical Hindus and Daoists all agree there is no god-that is, a personal Being--and certainly not one who created the world. They see nothing in the same way as do those religions that believe there is a personal god. And even those Hindus and Buddhists and Daoists who do believe in personal gods disagree on the chief god and how to reach that god.

So there is no one thing that all the religions have in common-even belief in a god or higher power-which would be required for us to believe there is such a thing as religion-in-general.

The real question, then, is which religion we are talking about when we talk about so-called religion and peace. For even within religions, there are huge differences. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his Regensburg address, there are destructive and diseased forms of religion, and other forms that are constructive and healing. We Christians must concede that there are diseased forms of Christianity, such as that which captured the holy city of Jerusalem during the Crusades and indulged in a bloodbath of both Muslims and eastern orthodox Christians.

But there was also Martin Luther King's Christianity that taught non-violent resistance to violence, in the name of Jesus Christ, and led middle-class white America to a reconsideration of race. And there was the Christianity of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, who condemned terror and death squads, defending the rights of poor peasants against powerful landowners. For that he was shot through the heart while saying Mass on 24 March 1980.

When we speak of Islam, are we talking about Sufi Islam, which tends toward peace? Or Wahhabi Islam, which suggests that non-Muslims and certain other Muslims should be killed?

And what about Hinduism? Are we talking about the militant brand which denies religious freedom to Muslims and Christians, and sometimes kills them? Or that peaceful and constructive brand of Hinduism that Mahatma Gandhi developed?

A third question we need to ask is whether peace is always the best thing. I suspect that most black slaves in America in 1860 believed that continued peace between a free North and defiant South was a threat to their freedom. And that Jews being held in Hitler's concentration camps in 1944 would not have felt comforted by talk of a sudden peace which would have left Hitler's killing machinery intact.

Or that the thousands of Christians and others being tortured in North Korea today, and perhaps even millions of their oppressed and impoverished fellow citizens, believe that continued peace with Kim il-Sung is not the best thing for their own welfare.

In situations like these, those who call for peace at any price are regarded by victims of murderous regimes as complicit in the evil of those murderous regimes.

Don't get me wrong, I said to this mixed group. I am not saying that peace is bad, and that religion should not make peace. What I am saying is that at certain times and places, when egregious evil has the upper hand, peace is not always the greatest good.

I concluded with five summary assertions:

1. When thinking about religion and peace, we need more critical thinking and fewer simplistic platitudes.

2. We should realize that irreligion can be just as dangerous as religion, and that hostility to religion in fact has been more destructive in history than religion itself.

3. We should ask not about religion in general and peace in general, but rather about which religion and which brand of each major world religion.

4. We should also be asking about which kind of peace. For the wrong kind of peace can sometimes encourage radical evil.

5. As a Christian, I believe that God has planted within each of us a desire for truth, beauty and goodness. But there is also within us an evil self-obsession that is never extinguished. That is why religion is often a mixture of good and bad. It is also why we should distinguish between those religions which recognize that capacity for evil (and so do not kill God's prophets) and those which don't. The religions that acknowledge their own tendency to be corrupted are also those that want to restrict secular government from getting too much power-power that is often used to destroy true peace.

Most of the speakers and the audience that night did not like my suggestions that some religions foment war, and that peace is not always the best thing. Most seemed to agree with the rabbi, who was of a modernist Reform bent. She said she "emphatically" disagreed with my contention that religion-in-general doesn't exist, and insisted that evil comes not from religion but from politics. The Buddhist spoke of world peace that would result from Buddhist principles.

When I objected to the general consensus that conversion should always be ruled out of inter-religious dialogue, and proposed that non-coercive religious persuasion should be permitted, most in the audience and on the panel erupted in anger.

Only the Muslim, who was a Sufi, agreed that evangelism should be allowed. One person in the audience reported, to the enthusiastic agreement of most, that only Christianity tries to convert others. I was the only one to disagree, explaining that Islam and many other religions also proselytize.

This inter-religious gathering was like many others I have joined. They demonstrate remarkable inter-religious ignorance, and sometimes they help dispel a bit of that ignorance. But mostly they illustrate what few seem to realize today, that the world religions point to different gods and teach very different things.


---Gerald McDermott is Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. His most recent books are The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions (Baker Books) and Understanding Jonathan Edwards (Oxford University Press, Nov. 2008).



http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=8976

What do you think of it?

Thanks for that, Inked. It's a good read. I'm at my college library and don't have much time, so I'll respond in greater length later on, prehaps when I get home tonight.

[Jonathan]

Whoa Sullivan, take it easy on the quote button

It's an interesting article, Inked. I too believe that the question "are religion and peace compatible" is the wrong question to ask.

I would be careful to separate religious and irreligious conflict and compare the two to see which is worst. On the global stage, religion and politics are intertwined. All religiously inspired wars have been political as well. And the other way around, "irreligious" violence might not be inspired by religion per se, but by worldviews and policies that people treat like religion (forms of communism, cult of personalities etc.)

The author of the article says: We should ask not about religion in general and peace in general, but rather about which religion and which brand of each major world religion. I'd say we should also include which ideologies, which policies for these are equally important for and associated with peace as any religious concern.

[Curufin]

Came across this quiz, and thought it was quite interesting.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

My top 5 results:

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (95%)
3. Neo-Pagan (92%)
4. New Age (88%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (87%)

What about everyone else? The results were pretty good for me, as I consider myself a combination of Quaker and Pagan...

[Nurvingiel]

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Liberal Quakers (94%)
4. Secular Humanism (81%)
5. Reform Judaism (80%)

This is uncannily accurate for an on-line quiz. Good find!

[GrayMouser]

100% secular humanist- no surprises there

[Earniel]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Liberal Quakers (78%)
4. Nontheist (75%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (67%)

Sounds reasonable, no real surprises, except that 'Liberal Quakers' is something I never even have heard of. And I find it rather scary that 'Scientology' still got 38%.

[The last sane person]

Gyah, I'm a buncha things. What the hell is a liberal quaker?

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. Neo-Pagan (88%)
4. New Age (84%)
5. Secular Humanism (84%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (82%)
7. Mahayana Buddhism (68%)
8. Reform Judaism (63%)
9. Taoism (62%)
10. Theravada Buddhism (59%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (58%)
12. New Thought (57%)
13. Nontheist (54%)
14. Bahá'Ã* Faith (54%)
15. Scientology (49%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%)
17. Sikhism (41%)
18. Jainism (38%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (35%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (30%)
21. Hinduism (30%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (29%)
23. Islam (28%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (26%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
26. Roman Catholic (20%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (18%)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

LOL.
I'm having trouble seeing you as a Quaker, of any stripe.
They're a traditional "Peace Church" and they worship silently.

[The last sane person]

...I do worship silently. My relationship with God is between me and God, and no one else. I do try to be peaceful. Notice the key word try. But what's a Liberal Quaker to begin with?

*twitch. I keep wanting to call it quacker*

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I have a lot of Quaker friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker