It means that whether or not you are religious is not the most important thing. What is most important is how you treat other people, e.g. your own pets. He is talking about people that don't practice what they preach, or that are hypocritical. Christianity, e.g. believes in loving your fellow man and being humble, yet some Christians do the exact opposite when they judge and condemn others. Another way to express his quote is: "judge a man by his actions rather than his words".
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
— Abraham Lincoln
"We preach peace, forgiveness, tolerance and love. We practice vengeance, persecution, hatred and domination. My personal beliefs are supported and validated by my convictions.
Oh, and never forget .... my religion is truth, yours is a lie."
— Religion, paraphrased (Author unknown)
"Words divorced from action supporting them are meaningless and hypocritical."
— Madalyn Murray O'Hair
We have a term to describe the person who, in the face of evidence that obviously conflicts with his personal beliefs, rationalizes in such a way as to remove the conflict. The term is cognitive dissonance.
— Farrell Till
The Bible is a mine rich in the ore of cognitive dissonance.
— Delos B. McKown
*Cognitive dissonance: A condition of conflict resulting from inconsistency between one's stated beliefs and one's actions. In other words, they don't practice what they preach
What has been the effect of religious coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
— Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826)
"On Saturday night, I would see men lusting after half-naked girls dancing at the carnival, and on Sunday morning when I was playing organ for tent-show evangelists at the other end of the carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday they'd be back at the carnival or some other place of indulgence. I knew then that the Christian church thrives on hypocrisy, and that man's carnal nature will (win) out no matter how much it is purged or scoured by any white-light religion."
— Anton LaVey
I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said,
"Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too!
Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
— Emo Phillips, comedian
2007-07-25 12:04:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by HawaiianBrian 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The word "pen" might be seen as an allegory for the will of the person or people. Real change only really occurs with the will to do so. You can force a person or nation to change (sword), but in the end, all that is brought about is resentment, and second they get a chance to, people change back. Look at the Polish people. Look at how many times Poland was invaded through the centuries: the Russians, the Germans. And yet they remained Polish. They maintained their ideals. The idea never died. And when the media broadcast the Solidarity movement, everyone rallied for their cause. This is but one example; I doubt this page would be large enough to show you them all. The pen really IS mightier than the sword.
2016-04-01 02:26:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus said, "In asmuch as you've done it unto the least of these, you've done it unto me." What he was talking about is taking care of people in need: feeding them, clothing them, giving them shelter, etc. How you treat the weakest and poorest of a society is a reflection of character (which many get from their religion).
I think Lincoln was stretching that principle to include animals, which were probably not well taken-care-of back in the 19th century. I imagine they might have been mistreated or abused. So, if your religion doesn't stress kindness and compassion even "unto the least of these," it's a worthless religion.
Just my 2-cents
2007-07-25 12:05:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jen 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Could he mean that religion should make people kinder, and thus they'd treat animals better? It's so easy to mistreat dogs or cats because they're smaller and weaker, and a religion worth its salt would make people treat well those who are weaker.
2007-07-25 12:05:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Diana 7
·
1⤊
0⤋