Religion Is the Biggest Bully of Them All

[trotsky]

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/10/06/religion-biggest-bully-them-all

Superlatives are hazardous. The biggest, best, or worst are declarations just begging to be shot down. Superlatives almost always lead to a great big heap of smoking one-upmanship. There's always something bigger or better and always something worse. That’s the way it is in a universe of infinite variables; suck it up. mortals. This is our lot.

...

But there's one superlative that doesn't bother me at all. It's a conundrum, and I feel safe in saying it's the biggest conundrum of all: Religion in the 21st century is the biggest bully in the room.

...

Here's the justified superlative: Is there any bigger conundrum than nice people all over the world doing really crazy shit in the name of religion?

Malicious misinformation in the name of good is the worst thing ever, especially in less educated, overly religious regions, and especially right before a presidential election.

[handmade34]

1. good read

I wonder, what would it be like if they gave 10 percent of their income to the school systems and preschools instead?

[padfun]

183. What!? And let them learn the world is older than 6000 years??

Shame on you.

[struggle4progress]

2. That was surprisingly content free

I gather the author is still upset that the so-called Campus Crusade for Christ distributed "I Found It" bumper-stickers forty years ago

I never had much use for the CCC, which always seemed to me a rather right-wing organization: CCC founder Bill Bright, for example, was a staunch supporter of US military adventurism. It might be worthwhile to track in detail connections between political conservative figureheads; but it's a vacuous activity to move from irritation about a bumper-sticker campaign forty years ago to meaningless generalities about "organized religion"

[jonno99]

3. +1 Agree. nt

[Cartoonist]

5. Here's some bully content

Ammon Bundy, who led an armed occupation of a U.S. wildlife center in Oregon earlier this year, testified in federal court on Thursday that his hostility toward federal land ownership was shaped by his religious faith and "natural laws."

[struggle4progress]

6. It's common human behavior: boorish jerks justify whatever they do however they can

This is the meaning of the story of Procrustes adjusting the guest to fit the bed, rather than adjusting the bed to fit the guest

[Brettongarcia]

7. Will religious people make any argument at all...

... that they feel is useful to defend their faith? Even in the face of thousands of examples that their religion is bad?

Your constant notion that religion makes no change in human behavior by the way, is also an argument that it does no good.

[cleanhippie]

11. QED

[Brettongarcia]

13. Struggle? You said 100 times religion doesn't cause violence.

On Democratic Underground, we looked at a hundred news stories, where murderers quoted religious concepts as a reason they committed their crime. But you claimed over and over that such murderers were not effected by religion. That they were using religion as an excuse for just doing what they would have done anyway.

But? Now it is time to note that in effect, logically, you are saying that religion has no effect on our behavior.

In that case? Note this carefully: Religion can't make us worse ... but it can't make us better, either.

At best, by your own argument, religion is neutral, and does nothing.

[Major Nikon]

25. Do you think someone would have flown an airliner into the WTC without religion?

Do you think bigotry towards LGBT would be so entrenched in society without religion?

I could go on and on with examples like these. Yes, guns may not kill people, but they definitely making killing people a helluva lot more efficient. The same is true of societal ills associated with religion.

[struggle4progress]

30. Dozens of amateur pilots used airplanes for suicide

Thomas Frank, USA TODAY 4:57 p.m. EDT April 2, 2015

At least 44 private pilots in the U.S. have committed suicide in the past 30 years by deliberately crashing their small airplanes ...

The most notable airplane suicide occurred five years ago in Austin when a local pilot apparently angry at the government flew his Piper Cherokee into an Internal Revenue Service office building, killing an IRS worker and igniting a massive fire.

... in Indiana in 2007 .. a man killed himself and his 8-year-old daughter by flying a rented Cessna into the house of his ex-wife's mother ...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/30/airplane-crash-pilot-suicide/70561398/

[Major Nikon]

36. Yes, and none of the examples you cited were precipitated by anyone other than the pilots themselves

So the question still stands unanswered.

[struggle4progress]

38. The real criterion for any scientific theory is simply this:

it provides us with some power over our world

We would know we had a scientific understanding of suicide-murder, for example, if we were able to affect the rate at which it occurred

The usual process for developing and testing scientific theories involves observations and experiments

Some serious ethical issues could arise from experiments to affect the rate at which suicide-murder occurs, so observation is a reasonable starting point

We observe that both private and professional pilots can commit both suicide and suicide-murder using planes

If you want a more detailed investigation into how other people might encourage or abet suicide or suicide-murder, feel free to begin that investigation: it would certainly be of interest to know in detail exactly why some individuals might be susceptible to such encouragement, especially because most individuals seem NOT to be susceptible to such encouragement

[Major Nikon]

39. I didn't ask if you thought it was possible, I asked if you thought it would have happened

In all of the examples you cited, the primary motivation was suicide and the secondary motivation was taking others along for the ride. In the case of the WTC, that dynamic was exactly reversed.

[struggle4progress]

41. We can agree 9/11 happened. The targets were the WTC and two DC sites,

one being the Pentagon. I think it possible that the actual targets give us an insight into motivations -- but we apparently disagree on this point

[struggle4progress]

42. Learn the logical principle 'ex falso quodlibet'

It is a consequence of material implication

The principle means, for our conversation, that there is nothing to be gained by an assumption-contrary-to-fact, because from such an assumption follows whatever-you-want: thus supposing that there were no religion (say) leads to the existence of pigs-with-wings

[struggle4progress]

31. MH370 Pilot Flew a Suicide Route on His Home Simulator Closely Matching Final Flight

July 22, 2016
2:40 p.m.

New York has obtained a confidential document from the Malaysian police investigation into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that shows that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, conducted a simulated flight deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean less than a month before the plane vanished under uncannily similar circumstances. The revelation, which Malaysia withheld from a lengthy public report on the investigation, is the strongest evidence yet that Zaharie made off with the plane in a premeditated act of mass murder-suicide ...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/mh370-pilot-flew-suicide-route-on-home-simulator.html

[struggle4progress]

32. FBI: CAP pilot intentionally crashed plane into Anchorage building

Author: Chris Klint Updated: July 8 Published June 20 <2016>

The pilot who died when the Civil Air Patrol plane he was flying slammed into a downtown Anchorage office building early on a December morning deliberately crashed into the structure, according to federal authorities.

Staci Feger-Pellessier, a spokeswoman for the Anchorage office of the FBI, announced the findings in a short release Monday.

The Dec. 29, 2015, plane crash killed the plane's sole occupant, CAP 1st Lt. and nature photographer Doug Demarest.

Demarest took off from Merrill Field at about 6 a.m. that morning, heading west over downtown Anchorage before turning east and shearing off a wing against the northwest corner of the Brady Building on Fourth Avenue. The Cessna 172 crashed into the nearby Carr-Gottstein Building seconds later and caught fire ...

http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2016/06/20/fbi-cap-pilot-intentionally-crashed-plane-into-anchorage-building/

[struggle4progress]

35. Murder-suicide plane crashes have killed over 600

BY FELICITY CAPON ON 3/27/15 AT 10:59 AM

Over 600 people have died as the result of commercial aircrafts being deliberately crashed by their pilots, in cases with striking similarities to the deliberate crash of Germanwings flight 4U 9525 into the French Alps on Tuesday, at the hands of 27-year-old co-pilot Andreas Lubitz.

Investigators concluded yesterday that the crash of the German airliner which killed all 150 on board was a deliberate act by the co-pilot - Lubitz had locked the pilot out of the cockpit before plunging the aircraft into the mountains ...

According to the Aviation Safety Network, six commercial planes since 1976, including Germanwings flight 4U 9525, are believed to have been intentionally crashed by pilots, resulting in the deaths of 605 people. This figure does not include the 239 fatalities of last year’s Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 as the accident is still under investigation.

In one case, a plane crash in Mozambique in 2013 that killed all 33 people on board, was intentionally crashed by the pilot. His co-pilot, like the captain in this week’s French Alps crash, had left the cockpit to go to the bathroom and then been locked out. According to one report, the pilot had been “very depressed” in the months leading to the crash, due to marital problems ...

http://www.newsweek.com/murder-suicide-plane-crashes-have-killed-over-600-317236

[rug]

40. Remember the Alamo!

Idiotic argument.

[Skittles]

178. no, they wouldn't

other plane suicides were not organized and funded by religious freaks

[Democrats_win]

127. Natural law

"certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Wikipedia shows that Natural law can be a serious philosophical idea.

Still, it scares me because it seems to use intuitive thought rather than logic based on facts. Worse, a lot of organized so-called Christian religions do in fact follow "Natural law" rather than the Bible. Recently, the Archbishop of Denver said that the sanctity of life was the single most important issue. But the Bible doesn't make THAT distinction. The Bible makes clear the importance of loving God, loving your neighbor or about the love of money being the root of all evil. The problem is that religion pulls a lot of their rules out of thin air rather than the Bible and often they misinterpret the Bible anyway. Religion shouldn't be using the power of government to force their mistaken ideas on real living people.

[recovering_democrat]

4. Yep. it is

Religion has always been the most fanatical thing in whatever part of the world, whatever sect. denomination, or belief. It is why really smart people like the Bill of Rights folks in this nation, dealt with it the way tht reduced its insane impact on all of us.

Yep, it is hazardous and scary.

I have a facebook page. the News Feed is always full of prayers, amens, and scary stuff about "other religions" but the person writing about their own. My favorites are (1) the repeated happiness about Mississippi allowing prayer in the schools, and (2) the hordes of muslims trying to kill us all.

what if they were combined and we could only have Muslim prayers in the Mississippi schools. What fun!

[Albertoo]

22. To be honest, there were political 'religions' as scary as the god religions

Nazism, Maoism, Kampuchea or Soviet Communism were no picnic.

[guillaumeb]

8. Militarism is the biggest bully of all.

Religion is just one of the arguments used to justify militaristic violence.

[Cartoonist]

9. It's the other way around

Militarism is used to spread religious dogma.

[guillaumeb]

10. Chicken vs egg argument.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Either way, religion is is involved in furthering violence

[guillaumeb]

14. Violent people often claim a religious or philosophical motivation.

But neither religion nor philosophy actually do anything.

[Brettongarcia]

15. ?!?

Last edited Sun Oct 9, 2016, 12:13 AM - Edit history (2)

But if true, then this strongly suggests that religion is worthless. Since it does not change our behavior, either for worse, or for better.

If the violence of the Bible does not influence people to commit violence? Then likely religion has no influence on our behavior. But if religion has no influence on our behavior? Then any good things in it, would not influence people to do good.

So the endless argument in Democratic Underground, over the last few years, that biblical violence does not cause people to commit violence themselves, implies that religion is powerless. And that just as it cannot influence people to commit violence, it cannot influence them to do anything good, either.

But since it appears likely that religion, like many strongly-affirmed statements, does cause people to do things? Then likely the violence in the Bible causes people to commit violence.

[guillaumeb]

16. You are trying to validate your predetermined conclusion.

No one, no belief, forces you or anyone to DO anything. People CHOOSE to take actions. If an atheist kills someone, that is not an indictment of atheism. Atheism is not charged in court.

[Brettongarcia]

18. Predestination is a major debate

So? Let's put that endless debate aside, and look at this a different way. In commonsense terms.

There is no doubt that when people hear a major authority - like the Bible, or the law, for many -approving of a given action? Then they are many times more likely to do it.

Even children look over at their mother or teacher, often, for approval for something. And when they see it, they are more likely to go ahead.

So when the people are told by their religious leaders, that the Bible is the word of God? And then they read God telling followers, often, to physically attack their enemies, then what is the totally predictable result?

[guillaumeb]

19. And when a President sends troops to war, with the idea being that they are fighting for God and

country, or for freedom, what is the totally predictable result?

We both know the result is death and hatred and violence. Do we then also condemn all forms of patriotism?

[Brettongarcia]

20. Misuse of that authorization is predictable

[guillaumeb]

43. We are in agreement. eom

[Brettongarcia]

62. I make no formal verification of agreement

[Albertoo]

21. Except that there is no 'sacred' book of Atheism saying "Slay the unbelievers in Atheism"

Unlike Saudi clerics who got someone condemned to death for renouncing Islam.

In which case it is an indictment of Islam as the legal murder is committed on religious grounds.

[guillaumeb]

44. I agree, but with one slight change.

You said:

Unlike Saudi clerics who got someone condemned to death for renouncing Islam.

In which case it is an indictment of Islam as the legal murder is committed on religious grounds.

If you said:

Unlike Saudi clerics who got someone condemned to death for renouncing their version of Islam.

In which case it is an indictment of their version of Islam as the legal murder is committed on religious grounds.

[Albertoo]

125. What you call 'their version' is the official version of the Sunni world = the hadiths

Killing apostates is literally enjoined in the hadiths which are revered by all Sunnis.

So the Saudis and ISIS are the more logical followers of the doctrine: they apply literally what is written in the books they believe to be sacred.

It's the soft Sunni regimes that do not follow the dictates of the Sunnah which are illogical.
If, as Sunnis claim, the Sunnah are sacred texts (even though this point was conjured up out of thin air as from the 8th century CE), then killing apostates and adulterers is OK.

Soft followers of hard religions just bury cognitive dissonances they can't solve.

[guillaumeb]

129. The hadiths are Islamic commentary.

Just as the Jews have their commentaries.

Just as Christians have their commentaries.

[Lordquinton]

132. In your version of Islam they are commentaries

Fixed that for you.

[Albertoo]

149. Absolutely not. Ask any mainstream imam.

•1: as the name indicates, the hadiths are not commentaries, but supposed to be reports of facts.

All the mainstream schools of Sunni Islam accept the main hadiths (sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari) as facts.

•2: the hadiths are -for most schools of Sunni Islam- the 2nd official source of law just after the Quran,

which, I suppose you will agree, places them far above mere human commentaries.

•3: human commentaries in Islam are separate and have specific names: Ijma and Qiyas.

Sharia = Quran + hadiths

jurisprudence (fiqh) = Sharia + Ijma and Qiyas


You seek to be Islam's advocate without apparently knowing it in detail. Not an easy task.

[guillaumeb]

159. I have discussed this with Muslims in my area, including one Imam.

A hadith (/ˈhædɪθ/[1] or /hɑːˈdiːθ/;[2] Arabic: حديث‎‎ ḥadīth, plural: ahadith, أحاديث, ʼaḥādīth[3]) is one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[3] The term comes from Arabic meaning a "report", "account" or "narrative". Hadith are second only to the Quran in developing Islamic jurisprudence,[4] and regarded as important tools for understanding the Quran and commentaries (tafsir) written on it. Some important elements of traditional Islam, such as the five salat prayers, are mentioned in hadith.[5]
The hadith literature is based on spoken reports that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Qur'an the hadiths were not quickly and concisely compiled during and immediately after Muhammad's life.[3] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad, after the end of the era of the "rightful" Rashidun Caliphate, over 1,000 km (620 mi) from where Muhammad lived.

Important tools for understanding
second only to the Qur'an in developing jurisprudence
evaluated centuries after the death of Mohammed
The commentaries are based on spoken reports

All of these phrases suggest that the Hadith, like their counterparts in Judaism and Christianity, are second to the revealed word. And because they are secondary, and only written long after they were first compiled, there can be different interpretations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

In addition, there is this:

Muslims regard the most reliable Qur'anic commentary as being contained in the Qur'an itself. In other words, the ways in which certain ayat clarify other ayat are regarded as being the most significant form of commentary. A second form of Qur'anic commentary is how the Prophet interpreted the Qur'an. And his comments on the Qur'an (as well as everything he ever said or did) are recorded in the hadith collections. After these two forms of commentary, knowledgeable companions and later generations of pious and learned Muslims expressed their view of the meaning of various ayat. It was on this foundation that the science of Qur'anic commentary was built.

the most reliable, the most significant, is the Qur'an itself.

Second is the Prophet's interpretation.

Third comes all the other views.
http://islam.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html

[trotsky]

162. Have you discussed it with ALL Muslims? If not, you can't speak for them. n/t

[guillaumeb]

165. Let me get started on that right now.

While you poll all believers so you can make your various claims.

[trotsky]

168. On countless occasions you have attempted to declare what is "true" Islam.

I've never done anything like that. I only point out that there is no "true" version of any religion.

I eagerly await your interviews with all of the world's Muslims to confirm you are able to speak for them.

[guillaumeb]

170. On countless occasions, you have attempted to reframe what I say so you can argue against it.

You just demonstrated that with your latest post.

But I eagerly await you referring to my exact statements that justify this:

On countless occasions you have attempted to declare what is "true" Islam.
 
I've never done anything like that. I only point out that there is no "true" version of any religion.

I eagerly await your interviews with all of the world's Muslims to confirm you are able to speak for them.

What interests me about this tactic is that what I actually said, what you claimed to be responding to, is easily viewable here.

[trotsky]

171. What you have said is indeed clear for anyone to read.

I stand by my statements. Have a great day.

[guillaumeb]

172. Evade, deflect and avoid. Obviously you have nothing else or you would have linked to it.

Points for consistency if nothing else.

[trotsky]

174. It's all in this thread. No need to link to anything.

No one is fooled by your tactics.

[guillaumeb]

176. You are obviously convincing yourself, but your evasion proves my point.

If you could link to what you claim that I said, you would have. That you have not proves my point.

[trotsky]

182. No one's fooled.

And I've linked. And you're now flailing, just as I predicted.

[Lordquinton]

184. Are the Muslims in your area Sunni or Shiite?

There is no "true Islam" any more than there is a true Christianity. Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons are all sects of Christianity, none of them follow the same thing. You're saying the book of Mormon is just a commentary, Essen.

[guillaumeb]

186. My point has been that there are varieties of every religion.

And that the actions of one believer, or one set of believers, is a reflection only on those individuals.

[Lordquinton]

190. So religion is pointless.

No matter what any book says it has no relation to the actions of it's followers.

So let's put it in the bin if it's so useless.

[stone space]

191. How would one put either atheism or religion "in the bin"?

So let's put it in the bin if it's so useless.

Do you realize how much violence would be required to put either religion or atheism "in the bin"?

It would make Trump's idea of deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants look easy by comparison.

This idea is a recipe for disaster.

You can put me down as unalterably opposed.

[Brettongarcia]

193. It's a personal decision to leave religion

No one is supporting forcing that on others.

[Lordquinton]

200. Why do you always go to a violent solution?

You are constantly edging to pull the trigger, inserting guns and death where it doesn't exist.

So gruesome and disturbing.

[stone space]

206. This is a blatant and knowing lie. And it is time to call a lie a lie.

Why do you always go to a violent solution?

You are constantly edging to pull the trigger, inserting guns and death where it doesn't exist.

So gruesome and disturbing.

[guillaumeb]

195. If you find it pointless, do not follow it.

That was simple.

[Lordquinton]

199. you're the one claiming it's pointless

yet you still follow it, why are you wasting your time if you feel it's so meaningless?

[guillaumeb]

207. I said "if YOU find it pointless" do not follow it.

Everyone finds meaning in something. I imagine that you have a something.

[Albertoo]

192. What you wrote confirms what I said and confirms you were wrong

You initially wrote the hadiths were commentaries.
As I pointed out, they are not commentaries, but reports accepted as true by Sunni Islam.

And when you discussed it with "an imam and Muslim friends", you appear to have misunderstood what they told you, or you would not have called the hadiths "commentaries"

Which is why to go back to the root of our discussion, Islam is unique in the authority given by the vast majority of its clerics to the most violent texts: the hadiths are real, real bad. That's where you find the commands to kill apostates, lapidate adulterers, throw gays from tall buildings, and fight armed jihad as much as possible.

[guillaumeb]

196. If you had bothered to read my response, you would have seen that they are considered

commentaries. But you are already convinced that your particular view is correct so in that sense you will win every argument.

Congratulations to you.

[Albertoo]

197. Did you ever read the hadiths? You are wrong: reports are not commentaries.

I wonder if you ever read the hadiths? They are not a discussion, a comment.
Read any passage at random: it's Z says Y told him X said W. It is called a chain of narration.

The hadiths purport to be reliable reports on the life and times of Muhammad and his companions. They were written intending to be taken as reliable accounts of facts. Any hint that there would be commentary would suggest opinion which would imply the hadiths are not reliable accounts, a view anathema to the great majority of the Muslim world.

I have no idea who the Muslim cleric is, and who the Muslim friends are, who reportedly told you the Sunnah is commentaries: that view is virtually non-existent in the Sunni world. But, and I was originally unsure about it, it's clear you're not a Muslim and do not know the mainstream interpretation of Sunni Islam well.

[Major Nikon]

27. You might want to do a bit of research on martyrdom

The concept exists in virtually every organized religion for a very good reason. It's far easier to get someone to march to their death with a conveniently unverifiable promise of reward in the afterlife.

[guillaumeb]

45. And military people are also killed for civil religion.

With the belief that their deaths will not have been in vain.

Another unverifiable promise.

[Major Nikon]

52. There's no promise involved

If one doesn't believe in an afterlife, there's literally nothing to promise other than a box with a flag over it.

[guillaumeb]

53. The promise that the deaths were not in vain.

A promise made to the survivors as consolation for the death.

[Major Nikon]

56. That's not a promise to the dead, that's a promise to the living

So you're making a pretty big false equivalency.

[guillaumeb]

57. It is a promise to the living made to convince them that the deaths are justified.

Belief systems can take many forms, and many belief systems are used to justify violence.

Agreed?

Or does a theological aspect somehow make the deaths worse? Are casualties in a religious war any more dead than casualties in a political war? How about a political war with religious overtones?

[Major Nikon]

58. Which is completely verifiable by the living

An insurance policy with the promise to repay your family members upon your death isn't the same thing as dropping coins in the collection plate with the promise of a reward in the afterlife.

[trotsky]

23. What is militarism?

In what holy book do we find militarism defined and commanded by a being purported to have created the universe?

[rug]

24. The fact that you need to ask the question is telling.

The fact that you are prepared to consider nonreligious militarism differently is disgusting.

[guillaumeb]

46. Militarism and patriotism are defined by the civil priests.

But we generally call them politicians.

And the holy book is called history.

[trotsky]

47. That didn't answer my question.

Please answer my question.

[guillaumeb]

49. You asked what is militarism. I linked it to politicians.

I would define militarism as the belief that military means are necessary and justified to accomplish political aims. Fascism is an extreme form of militarism.

I would also posit that some militarists prefer a military solution to perceived problems. In the US those militarists can be found in both major parties.

Your thoughts?

[trotsky]

50. Right. You didn't answer.

I asked: "In what holy book do we find militarism defined and commanded by a being purported to have created the universe?"

"A history book" is not an answer to that question. There are no divine creators (such as the one in which you believe) in history books.

Please answer the question.

[guillaumeb]

51. You rejected my answer.

History, or historical myth, is a belief that is used to justify violence. Belief in the US as having a special role in the world is a quasi-religious belief.

I understand that my answer does not fit with (what I see as) your apparent need to cast religion as uniquely responsible for violence, but belief systems take many forms.

And people justify violence by appealing to many different beliefs.

[trotsky]

54. Right, because it didn't answer the question.

Religious people think that the ultimate creator of the universe either wrote, dictated, or guided the development of their holy book, and thus the commandments within are divinely blessed.

That is not the case with ANY history book.

You have failed. Not that it was unexpected.

[guillaumeb]

55. Your beliefs require that you frame your questions in a certain way.

And your beliefs require that you reject answers that are not properly framed to accord with your beliefs.

And that is your right.

My beliefs, and my faith, requires that I show respect and tolerance for your views. And I do.

[trotsky]

60. Your beliefs require that you can only answer questions in a certain way.

The basic point (one that you've never been able to address) is that by introducing the concept of a divine being who can violate natural laws of the universe, who dictates morality, who is purported to be beyond human understanding and logic, we have an element that goes above and beyond ANY nationalism, militarism, or other secular institution that you desperately keep trying to at best equate with religion, at worst portray as the actual source of religious extremism and violence.

Your steadfast refusal to explore that notion betrays your agenda, over and over.

[guillaumeb]

63. To explore your response

a Creator, or the concept of a divine being, is something that has created existence. So there is no contradiction or violation because a Creator cannot contradict or violate what was created.

I have asked the question of how human understanding can really comprehend the nature of a the Creator. As a human, I approach everything from a human perspective, and with human intelligence. What makes any human feel that their intelligence is large enough to comprehend the Creator's motives?

And what you and other atheists refuse to admit it that your philosophy of non-belief is no different from the philosophy of belief. And that betrays your agenda, to use your term.

The belief system that is patriotism, the belief system that is atheism, the belief system that is faith are all belief systems.

[trotsky]

116. Must have missed this.

Thanks for a great example of the special pleading fallacy with your creator claim. That's a good one.

But what you and many theists cannot grasp is that there is simply no such thing as a "philosophy of non-belief." None whatsoever. There is nothing that automatically flows from non-belief in gods. You repeat your claim over and over and over though, because it's so essential to your worldview and the way that you justify religious belief and (what you believe to be) its completely pure nature, compared to all the human-created institutions and structures that you believe are the true source of evil, not religion.

Is the non-belief in patriotism a belief system too? What about the non-belief in unicorns?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Militarism doesn't cause religion, but religion too often causes militarism. . . . nt

[Major Nikon]

28. It's not so much of a cause and effect relationship

Both militarism and organized religion go hand in hand and it's hard to imagine how any significant civilization short of highly isolated ones could have existed without both.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Lots of isolated groups have religion because the power structure uses it to control people. . . .nt

[Major Nikon]

33. True, but in that instance there's not as much need for militarism

The use of organized religion by those in control extends beyond making militarism more efficient.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. That's the point. . . . . .nt

[Major Nikon]

37. My point is I don't see it as a cause and effect relationship

If anything the examples of one existing without the other betray that notion.

I see organized religion and militarism coexisting well together because both are tools used to exert power.

[guillaumeb]

48. Militarists will often use religion as justification for militarism.

Phrases such as "for God and Country" and "God is on our side" and much US mythstory talks about the US being a nation consecrated to a special purpose.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. Exactly. . . . nt

[trotsky]

61. From what religion does the concept "God is on our side" arise?

[guillaumeb]

64. The state religion that is patriotism. eom

[NeoGreen]

65. Patriotism

'Patriotism will not do?'
'My dear creature, I have done with all debate. But you know as well as I, patriotism is a
word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is
infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.'

Master and Commander, pg 112
Patrick O'Brian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_and_Commander

[guillaumeb]

71. And some use patriotism as an excuse for violent actions.

[NeoGreen]

79. Or religion...

...as circumstances warrant.

[trotsky]

66. And from what holy book does that religion arise?

You're just going in circles now.

[guillaumeb]

72. US history.

I am not going in circles. You simply do not like the direction.

[trotsky]

73. US history isn't a holy book.

You're right, you aren't going in circles. You've simply reached a dead end.

[guillaumeb]

74. I would say you are locked into a literalist definition of words because you cannot admit

that belief can take many forms.

Belief in country is a form of religion, with ritual and holy books.

[trotsky]

75. Your argument is indeed much stronger...

when you get to make up whatever definitions you want for words. No argument here.

[guillaumeb]

76. Belief systems are based on many things, with some similarities.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/patriot.html

An essay about the state religion called patriotism.

[trotsky]

77. Sure thing, whatever you say.

Let me know when you find that holy book, and more importantly, the all-powerful creator of the religion called patriotism.

Until then, you're just slapping the label around so much it loses any significant meaning. Anything that someone likes that influences their behavior becomes a religion by your use of the term. A TV show. A comic book character. Etc.

[guillaumeb]

78. I linked to an article. You can find more, or could if you really wanted to understand another

perspective. But if you need/prefer to reserve the power to define the debate ignore the essay.

[trotsky]

86. As I just pointed out, you're the one trying to define things to your liking.

This so-called "religion" of patriotism is merely an attempt by you to absolve belief in god from any kind of wrongdoing in the world. Despite god belief and actual religion predating nation-states by an unknown number of centuries, somehow in your world nope, it's patriotism that has been responsible for everything bad in the world, corrupting god-based religion which in your mind can only be pure and good.

Sorry, I refuse to subscribe to such a black-and-white worldview. Religion and belief in god is ALSO responsible for bad stuff. And no, it's not just people who are acting according to other motivations, and pretending to credit it to their religious views, as you believe. They actually believe it - and despite all your many failed attempts to claim otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

88. As you pointed out does no really describe this latest post by you.

First, when you wrote this:

This so-called "religion" of patriotism is merely an attempt by you to absolve belief in god from any kind of wrongdoing in the world. Despite god belief and actual religion predating nation-states by an unknown number of centuries, somehow in your world nope, it's patriotism that has been responsible for everything bad in the world, corrupting god-based religion which in your mind can only be pure and good.

I only have one issue with your response, and that is that I have never actually said any of this. This is an attempt by you to mischaracterize my responses here and in other threads. Which refers back to my earlier response because it is evident that you are attempting to reframe my arguments so you can knock them down. Classic straw man tactic.

[trotsky]

90. We've been through this many, many times. I agree.

But your behavior is quite clear because you exhibit it over and over.

Any time religious-inspired terrorism is discussed, you try and change the topic to the "religions" of militarism or patriotism or nationalism or something else, making it very clear that you don't believe the true motivation for a terroristic attack can be genuine religious belief.

But we can put this to bed once and for all. Just answer one question:

Do you accept that an act of violence or hate (in particular an act of terrorism) can be motivated by sincere religious belief, or in other words by the individual acting exactly as they honestly and sincerely believe a god desires, or is commanding them to?

Just answer yes or no. Let's get rid of the "straw man" if that's what it truly is.

[guillaumeb]

92. Asked and previously answered. But in the interest of clarity:

people are motivated by many beliefs to commit violence. The motivation can be religious or secular.

[trotsky]

93. So your answer to my question is "yes"?

Yes, you accept that an act of violence or hate (in particular an act of terrorism) can be motivated by sincere religious belief, or in other words by the individual acting exactly as they honestly and sincerely believe a god desires, or is commanding them to?

[guillaumeb]

94. People are motivated by many beliefs to commit violence. The motivation can be religious or secular.

That seems quite clear to me.

For consistency and clarity, I also added the word "secular" in my response. And I have never claimed to believe otherwise.

A question for you:
Do you believe that people can and do commit violence because they believe that their government demands it? Do people kill for country in war and at other times?

[trotsky]

95. So for the record, you did not answer my question.

You answered a different question.

And you're complaining about straw men. Fascinating.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

[guillaumeb]

101. I actually answered it twice.

[trotsky]

106. No, you did nothing of the sort.

My question would have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no." You couldn't provide that, so you gave an answer to a different question.

If there is something about my question that you don't like, just say so. But once again, you demonstrate that I am correct in my assessment of your position by failing to answer the one question that would prove me wrong.

[guillaumeb]

110. Allow me to prove you wrong.

Some people commit violence because their personal religious beliefs support their decision.

Some questions cannot be answered with yes/no because yes/no allows for no nuance.

[trotsky]

112. Strange. You said you'd prove me wrong, but your post didn't.

What's wrong with my question, if you can't (won't) answer it? Be specific. Because I can see a clear difference between what I'm asking, and what you are "answering."

Your criticism would be fair if my question were something like "Yes or no: does religion cause terrorism?" But it's not.

So your avoidance to answer it is actually confirming the answer I know you would give to it, and your claims that I am portraying a straw man mischaracterization of your position are false. Answer my question, or explain what's wrong with it.

[stone space]

80. Could you put a summary on an internet meme, please?

http://infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/patriot.html

An essay about the state religion called patriotism.

That would make it easier to digest.

[Brettongarcia]

145. Gilla? Heard of the "no true Scotsman fallacy?

When yoor religion does something that is obviously bad, you and a million preachers say, "that's not TRUE Christianity." Even though it's in the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

158. And where exactly did I say that?

Take the time you need.

[Brettongarcia]

160. When you emphasize causes of violence other than religion,

Like patriotism? Clearly that functions in present context as an attempt to picture religion in a more favorable light. As most defenders of Christianity do.

And in the larger picture, when most do this, typically it stems from a view that peaceful religion is the true, real Christianity. Evidence of a violent side to religion is typically ignored, denied.

Or in your case, acknowledged but demphasized. By your frequent insistence that religion does not encourage violence. But is only used as an excuse for what violent people are going to do anyway.

[guillaumeb]

161. Quite a roundabout admission that I did not actually say what you previously posted.

And at the end you acknowledge that your first contention does not represent anything I said.

And, just to refresh, this post is actually about religion being the biggest bully. So the original premise is based upon one person's feeling as to what religion really is.

[Brettongarcia]

163. Often its not what people say, but what they assume

That is important.

Here, behind your statements seems to be a common Christian vanity: that of course their religion is entirely holy and perfect. And therefore, any evidence of something wrong in it, must actually come from some external evil. E. g. In your case, patriotism.

But you admitted earlier, that allowances for violence by Religion, lend themselves to misuse. This I suggest is due to an inherent inadequacy, a fatal lack of definiteness, in our often equivocal religious texts themselves.

[trotsky]

164. Yeah, you've got it. n/t

[guillaumeb]

166. So again you ascribe something to me that cannot be found in my actual posts.

The key word in your post is "seems", which is a different word from "is". And your seems in my view seems to be a projection on your part.

Interesting debate tactic. In future, why do you not simply write my responses as you feel that I should have written them and then you can demolish my logic with your insight?

I have corresponded here with a few atheists/agnostics/unbelievers who appear to be quite certain that believers are all intolerant of others.

This certainty is itself a manifestation of intolerance. An intolerance for difference. So is intolerance of believers any better than intolerance of unbelievers?

I think not.

[Brettongarcia]

167. So are you admitting there can be bad things in Christianity?

Or not?

Here's your chance to clarify your position. And thus render any speculations or analytic extrapolations unnecessary.

Clearly state your position, and we won't have to speculate what it is.

I'd say that here, you're hinting that indeed, you are basically a defender of the faith. And are suggesting that is not a bad thing.

That might be allowed, even in this Group. But it suggests that your occasional apparent acceptance of some religious criticism, is not completely consistent, and is merely apparent.

We hope to convince you to continue looking critically into religion.

[guillaumeb]

169. I am still waiting for you to clarify yuor view or admit that you have constructed a straw man

that you are attempting to substitute for my actual responses. I asked for instances in my posts of what you claim to be typical of believers. You have not given one such instance.

So, given that you accused me of something, if you clearly state what you meant or provide examples in my posts of what you meant we can continue.

And I do not hint. I am a believer in the message of Jesus. That should be quite clear. And given that this is the "religion" group, faith is obviously part of that area of debate.

[trotsky]

173. Proving that we are criticizing a straw man is quite easy.

Answer my question from post #90 with a simple yes or no. Or explain why the question is faulty, so I can adjust it to your liking.

Here it is again for your convenience:

Do you accept that an act of violence or hate (in particular an act of terrorism) can be motivated by sincere religious belief, or in other words by the individual acting exactly as they honestly and sincerely believe a god desires, or is commanding them to?

[guillaumeb]

175. Yes.

Do you in turn accept that people can be motivated to do violence by many other types beliefs? Beliefs such as patriotism, or culture, or skin color?

[trotsky]

179. HOLY FUCKING SHIT

You finally answered! What was so freaking hard about that?

And OF COURSE people can be motivated to do violence for other reasons - I have never claimed otherwise, in fact, that's YOUR straw man that you assign to everyone who points out your continual efforts to excuse religion as a motivation.

But now that you've answered my question, you have to face the words you've written and explain yourself. For instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=180364

In the Koran, the Prophet tells the faithful to "forget and forgive, live and let live" but many of those who claim to follow him have ignored these words.

My feeling is that anyone can claim to be following any philosophy but I will judge them by their actions.

In that little excerpt, you are specifically claiming to know what Islam must entail, and then declaring that anyone who doesn't follow your interpretation isn't really a Muslim (i.e., they're just "claiming" to be). So let's see how you reconcile these opposing viewpoints and get out of the box you just locked yourself into.

This will be fun.

[guillaumeb]

180. Easy one. Almost too easy in fact.

Here is what you clipped out:

In the Koran, the Prophet tells the faithful to "forget and forgive, live and let live" but many of those who claim to follow him have ignored these words.

My feeling is that anyone can claim to be following any philosophy but I will judge them by their actions.

1) The Koran is quite clear on the Prophet's words, and the words quoted do appear in the Book.
2) I have often talked about people "claiming to believe" in a particular philosophy. And that statement is correct, even if you do not understand what is meant. I have no idea what people believe other than what they claim to believe. If people act in a manner inconsistent with the Prophet's injunction to "forgive and forget", then yes, I am making a judgement that they are ignoring those words.

3) I do not judge people by what they say, but by they they do.

So any inconsistencies that you perceive are due to my phrasing or your misunderstanding.

[trotsky]

181. Easy only with the worldview you've chosen.

1) The Koran is quite clear on the Prophet's words, and the words quoted do appear in the Book.

No, it isn't, because otherwise there would be only one set of Islamic beliefs, and there would be no disagreement as to what Mohamed said or meant. But there is disagreement. Lots of it.

2) ... If people act in a manner inconsistent with the Prophet's injunction to "forgive and forget", then yes, I am making a judgement that they are ignoring those words.

Ignoring? Or finding they aren't applicable to a situation that you think they are? You might not understand Islam like they do. You don't get to judge if they are following Islam. That is the point I've made over and over, and you appear to accept, but then go right on pretending it was never pointed out. You proclaim yourself the sole judge of what is or isn't truly following a religion. Thank you for proving my point once again.

3) I do not judge people by what they say, but by they they do.

You left off the last half of that thought, which is '...and then compare those actions to what my own individual interpretation of their religion says.'

That's how you judge them.

You failed. Keep trying.

[guillaumeb]

187. Absurdity.

I repeat ad nauseum that I am not the one who determines what a belief system is, and you insist that I am saying the opposite. So either there is a linguistic problem, or a cognitive one.

You are actually the one who wrote that religion is the biggest bully of all. A nonsense statement that can only be true if you alone determine the parameters. And obviously you reserve to yourself the privilege of defining what others really mean, thus making it easy for you to declare that you have won.

So yes, I do fail to see any logic behind your initial statement and I fail to see how you declare victory. But that is one of the limitations of an online debate.

So why are you so intolerant of religion? Are you fighting intolerance with intolerance? And if so, what does that make you?

[trotsky]

198. I agree, your position is absurd.

You simultaneously proclaim that you have the ability to judge whether someone is truly a follower of a religion, while claiming that you aren't really judging them. Truly bizarre.

And no, I didn't write that "religion is the biggest bully of all," the author of the piece I linked to did. Do you understand how this "Internet" thing works?

When you've figured out how to reconcile the blatant contradiction that is at the base of your beliefs about religion and its role in the motivation of people to do bad things, let me know. In the meantime, thank you for demonstrating the inherent flaw in your position.

FWIW, I don't see any need to address your attempts to change the topic, though I completely understand why you'd really like to.

[Lordquinton]

185. Is that the only thing Muhammad said?

I thought it was a much bigger book than just one line.

[guillaumeb]

188. Did you read what I posted? If so, why would you ask this question?

[Lordquinton]

189. I did.

You choose one sentence that he said, and declared it the yardstick for religious actions.

So have an answer?

[guillaumeb]

194. That is not what I said.

[Lordquinton]

201. It is what you said

You took one sentence and asked why people aren't following the prophet's words.

Maybe look at some of his other words and you'll find that they are following them.

[guillaumeb]

208. I actually said that not all people follow these words.

Just as all people do not follow the "do unto others" advice of Jesus.

[Albertoo]

209. Is this a joke? where did guillaumeb find this quote?

But now that you've answered my question, you have to face the words you've written and explain yourself. For instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=180364

In the Koran, the Prophet tells the faithful to "forget and forgive, live and let live" but many of those who claim to follow him have ignored these words.

In the Koran, the Prophet tells the faithful to "forget and forgive, live and let live"???

I am very curious indeed to learn the surah/ayat references of such a peaceful verse.


NB: even if it existed, it would be a "Meccan verse" and cancelled out due to the Law of Abrogation which gives precedence to the intolerant and violent "Medina verses"

(assuming that there are traces of historic reality in the story of Muhammad having existed, and if so, in Mecca/Medina rather than in the Petra region which is far more likely)

[trotsky]

210. Geez, I kinda took it for granted he'd know what he was talking about.

Guess I was wrong? Looks like when you're making excuses for religion, you can just invent whatever you want.

[Brettongarcia]

146. The Nazi state religion that quotes God, or "Gott"

Is obviously taking inspiration, part of its strength, from the Bible. Whose own occasional antisemitism can be found in John's attacks on "the Jews."

So biblical Christianity is clearly part of the inspiration for murderous antisemitism. And not just German nationalism or patriotism.

[rug]

17. "Courage is fire, and bullying is smoke" - Benjamin Disraeli

This essay is neither.

[Lordquinton]

100. It's funny to see the twisting going on.

Redefined literally everything to be a religion, attempting to remove religion from the examination of historical events, claiming religion has no operator so it can't do bad things.

All with a straight face. I really can't undehow people in the world think their beliefs and actions have no effects on the world.

[trotsky]

108. It's been quite entertaining, but wholly expected. n/t

[Lordquinton]

113. I see a lot of the common excuse

Calling something else bad, and also that it's just like religion.

[Brettongarcia]

111. Gotta do it. Thankless task to be sure.

This is where most church sermons are at. Endless sophistiries.

[BlueCaliDem]

126. As a Christian, I can't disagree. I've seen too many egos infesting organized religion that

it can't be denied that organized religion appears to give ego-trippers the avenue to assert their "superiority" over others - and that's not the Christian way. Not what the first Christians wanted us to be.

So, yes, you're correct. Unfortunately.

[Act_of_Reparation]

130. Problematic reasoning.

Last edited Tue Oct 18, 2016, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

I've seen too many egos infesting organized religion that it can't be denied that organized religion appears to give ego-trippers the avenue to assert their "superiority" over others

You're trying to separate the religion from its adherents. This is not possible. The Realm of Ideal Forms is not real. There is no perfect concept of "Christianity" floating around in the aether. A religion is nothing more than what its adherents make of it.

that's not the Christian way. Not what the first Christians wanted us to be.

What, exactly, did the first Christians want us to be?

[trotsky]

131. If the Book of Acts is to be believed,

the first Christians wanted everyone to sell everything they had and give it to the church, lest they be struck dead by Yahweh on the spot.

[stone space]

133. It's easier in the internet age.

the first Christians wanted everyone to sell everything they had and give it to the church, lest they be struck dead by Yahweh on the spot.

These days, one can skip all the work and just call yourself a Christian, and if anybody questions it, invoke an internet meme about Scotsmen.

Ah, the wonders of modern technology!

Makes everything in life so convenient and hassle free!

[trotsky]

136. *sigh* Correcting you once again:

It's not a meme, it's a logical fallacy first referenced in the 1970s.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.

Now if you care to have an actual discussion about the topic at hand, let's do it. But if you're just going to engage in the same BS again and again, goodbye.

[stone space]

137. If I claim to be an astronaut, then I'm an astronaut. This is the internet, after all.

Call it a meme or call it a fallacy.

Either way, it sure makes life easy in the internet age!

Anybody can be an astronaut. It ain't rocket science. Not in the internet age, anyway!

[rug]

135. If the Book of Acts were to be read,

which you clearly have not, or are deliberately misstating, you'd realize how stupid that statement is.

Acts 4

34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

[Fix The Stupid]

138. So, is this bible passage...

So, is this bible passage one we are to take literally? Or is this one a metaphor?

[rug]

139. If you can't tell I can't fix it.

[Fix The Stupid]

140. That's why I am asking you..the expert.

So, what is it, in your humble opinion?

Literal or metaphor?

This will be the 2nd time you've been asked. Please do not be rude and answer.

[rug]

141. These people are the experts:

Thomas J. Hagerty

Thomas J. Hagerty was a Catholic priest from New Mexico, USA, and one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Haggerty is credited with authoring the IWW Preamble, assisting in writing the Industrial Union Manifesto and drawing up the first chart of industrial organization. He became a Marxist before his ordination in 1892 and was later influenced by anarcho-syndicalism. Haggerty's formal association with the church ended when he was suspended by his archbishop for urging miners in Colorado to revolt during his tour of mining camps in 1903.


Ernst Bloch

Ernst Bloch (1885–1977) was a German Marxist philosopher and atheist theologian. Although not a Christian himself, he is said to have "bridged the gap" between Christian communism and the Leninist branch of Marxism. One of Bloch's major works, the Principle of Hope, contains such declarations as: "Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem" (Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem) and "the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism [is part of] the age-old fight for God."


Diane Drufenbrock

Diane Drufenbrock was a Franciscan nun and Socialist Party USA member. She was the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party USA in the United States presidential election, 1980. She worked as a teacher in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


Camilo Torres Restrepo

Camilo Torres Restrepo was often considered to be a Christian Communist due to his attempts, as a priest, to reconcile Roman Catholicism with Marxism and the communist revolution. He was a key person for Liberation Theology, which was called Communist by both the Vatican and the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

As for me, my opinion is that this is exactly what was done in the earliest communities but it did not last.

[Brettongarcia]

142. God kills those who don't contribute, in Acts 5.1-12

Looks like the nice God didn't last long at all, in fact.

[rug]

143. If you believe that actually happened.

[Brettongarcia]

144. So you're following the metaphor algorithm?

If you like it, it's good or literal.

If you don't, it isn't.

[rug]

147. No, I'm following reading comprehension.

But, by all means, type the algorithm. I'd love to see it.

[Brettongarcia]

148. "Fill in the Blank" Post #1. Modern preachers misrepresented the Bible.

When do our modern liberal churches quote the Bible, and take it literally? When it agrees with their view of a peaceful Jesus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=237436

You, Rug, and Gilliam both, were obviously taught by typical "modern" priests, ministers, Sunday Schools, catechism classes. But they grossly misrepresented the Bible to you, to support their bias toward a peaceful God and Jesus. Quoting the parts that fit their bias or preference. And leaving out or metaphorically "twist"ing the parts that didn't.

Fundamentalist, evangelical religious churches are just as bad, but in the reverse way. They quote and take literally most of the violent parts of the Bible. And metaphoricalize - or just leave out quoting - the peaceful parts.

None of our religious leaders, priests, and ministers, were ever actually good or honest or reliable. All of them taught the Bible inaccurately and dishonestly.

"All have sinned."

For that matter, the Bible itself and its authors were bad too. They wrote contradictory messages continually. Sometimes they presented a peaceful God; sometimes a very violent one.

[rug]

150. That's not an algorithm.

Actually, I had a wide variety of teachers, the majority of them conservative. But to a person, men and women, they thought. They did not vapidly recite talking points and view either thought or people as stereotypes. not even the most conservative of them was a literalist, which seems to be the trap yo've found yourself in.

It's clear you have acquired a shallow two-dimensional view of Christianity in particular and an unwarrented judgmental view of people of faith. Otherwise, this preposterous statement could not have been typed: "All of them taught the Bible inaccurately and dishonestly." By that, you are proclaiming the reverse; only you teach the Bible accurately and honestly.

I prefer my approach.

[Brettongarcia]

151. At one time, only a Christian view was allowed, or popular

In the USA. This meant that there were many versions of Christianity allowed. But only one general view was ultimalely permissible: the pro-Christian view.

It wasn't until minority rights, c. 1970, and then the new Nones, c. 1996, that anything but a pro-Christian view has really been popularly allowed, or has gained much strength.

I've written several book drafts on problems, sins, in spirituality. "False spirits" among them.

In effect that diagram is a flow chart or basic computer program.

[rug]

152. You're think of some of the colonies, not the United States

And your history about minority rights is off by more than a century.

[Brettongarcia]

153. Technically?

Last edited Wed Oct 19, 2016, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Non-Christian religion and even no religion, was technically allowed in the early USA. But as a practical matter, there was strong social disapproval of such. Likewise, African Americans were technically freed by Lincoln. But could not always vote, or step into any store or school. Until as late as school integration by Eisenhower. Then the Civil Rights Voting act of 1964.

To this day, the particular minority we call atheists, meets with very strong social disapproval, or very vocal and sometimes impolite opposition. Even here on DU. Though that opposition is considered permissible, it is nevertheless a remaining vestige of still-noticeable social disapproval, and bias.

And outside our present group (or at times even within it?), there is still a degree of suppression, or there are still many attempts to ridicule, refute, and in that way silence, atheists. By believers loyal to the old religion.

This pressure on atheists not to express their views, is technically allowable. But in any case, it is almost constantly there. Hindering the expression of atheists' perspectives. In most religious forums, the perspective of even scholarly atheists have on religion, is not fully allowed. Very often it is blocked, even on religious and even scholarly blogs and sites. This, even though an atheistic and scientific perspective on religion has much to offer.

[rug]

154. Are you complaining that atheists meet with impolite opposition?

[Brettongarcia]

155. Equally on both sides of course

[rug]

156. I'll accept that.

In the interest of civil discourse.

[cornball 24]

204. Brilliant response!

[Skittles]

177. CORRECT

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

[HAB911]

202. All Supremacists by nature are bullies

[Fichefinder]

203. There are few,

if any, atheist suicide bombers. Someone should do a Venn diagram on that.

[cornball 24]

205. Hi there. Just wondering why you felt the need to post this superfluous and supercilious

article on superlative whatever! What happened to declarative and comparative! I digress. To blame religion for the ills of the world is, IMHO, an oversimplification of the problems that exist. There are many who have a religious affiliation who exemplify in their daily lives the best, oops, superlative, in their interactions with their fellow humans. To overlook and underestimate the innate positive nature of mankind is exactly the kind of rhetoric that poisons. Negativity is poisonous. The "religion is the biggest bully of them all" premise is pure "BULL"shit.