As a general rule

[quakerboy]

Can we dispense with blaming human cruelty on thought x or belief y, and admit that humans in groups come up with crazy shit that generally involves hurting other humans who don't fit their group?

[Deep13]

1. Nope. What people believe drives what they do.

I never blame a group for the crimes of individuals. That really would be bigotry and I doubt anyone here would do that either.

But beliefs themselves direct how people see the world and what they do in it. If I really believe that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to accept the Evangelical view of Christianity, then it becomes a moral imperative to do everything I possible can to convert as many people as possible. Not to do so would be like not pulling a child off the road after noticing a speeding car. If I believe that god will turn cities into salt if it tolerates homosexuality, then it becomes a moral imperative not to tolerate it. If I believe that suicide for the purpose of destroying god's enemies will gaurantee a free pass for 70 of my freinds and family--some of whom would certainly go to hell otherwise--then how can I not wear a bomb vest? Irrational belief makes good people do bad things. These are extreme examples, of course, but the evil of irrationality manifests itself in small ways everyday.

So, no, I can't agree to that.

[nuxvomica]

3. "the evil of irrationality"?

If you say that any irrational belief is inherently evil and that beliefs drive people's behavior, then you must think that what Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Gandhi and others did was evil. I think people make their own choices and their belief systems, for better or worse, can validate those choices. Some irrational beliefs are inherently evil but not all.

[RadicalGeek]

4. Of course

People can be easily convinced that any belief is rational.
Look at birthers and the teabaggers. . .

[unpossibles]

7. no question! And welcome to DU

where rational beliefs constantly struggle with irrational ones.

:D

Seriously though; welcome.

[Deep13]

23. True. nt

[Deep13]

22. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Christopher Hitchens discusses all three examples at length in his book God Is Not Great. I refer you to that.

To put it briefly: nothing MLK did was irrational. He is one of the best people the world has ever produced. While he used Christianity as a lingua franca for his audience, what he was doing was decidedly unchristian. The NT teaches people that this life (our only life) is only a preparation for a glorious afterlife and that suffering here is a virtue because it will lead to a martyr's reward in heaven. Frankly, first slavery and then segregation was actively supported by most Christian Churches until the Civil Rights movement. And of course racism itself is king of the irrational thoughts. So whatever virtue was in King's personal religious beliefs, it has to be weighed against the irrational evil of racism he was fighting against.

Gandhi was a mixed bag. He was the face of the revolution and he rejected some of the most abusive aspects of Hinduism. That was a rational reaction to the evil of irrational fundamentalism. Nevertheless, his cult of simplicity had some real drawbacks for his immediate followers and for India. The reliance on Hinduism as its inspiration effectively alienated the Muslims and was partly responsible for the partition of Pakistan. Again, he did some great things, but it was in the face Christian, Muslim and Hindu irrationality. And not everything he did was great.

Mother Theresa could not possibly be a worse example. She was a fundamentalist and a sadist. Her own words support this. She did not run a hospital. She ran a "home for the dying." And that is what she expected her residents to do. They slept on the floor, ate bad food and received very little medical attention. They were also isolated from friends and family. Watching people suffer made her feel closer to Jesus. She said this on film. She could have truly reduced the suffering of the people in her charge by using the money she raised from donors all over the world. Unfortunately, most of that money was used for expanding her monastic order which is not what donors had in mind. Her fame has been used by the RC Church to promote backward rules. M.T. is only an example of saintly charity in the popular imagination. The reality is something completely different.

Again, Hitchens in his book God Is Not Great addresses all three examples and he goes into great detail on Mother Theresa in his pamphlet The Missionary Position.

And before you write something nasty about Hitchens being a drunk and a war monger, we already know that. Ad hominem attacks only divert attention away from the issue at hand and on that he is exactly right.

[quakerboy]

9. I would posit that

it has more to do with a complete lack of hope for the future good in the outlook of those persons. Why do we see so many in palestine willing to strap on that vest, and so few here in the US, where arguably as drastic of things are preached every week? Moderate satisfaction with the quality of life and ones outlook for the future seems to have more to do with the willingness to do drastic things than any particular belief system, however illogical.

People will find reasons to be against others. Its our nature. Hell, we had that big fight in the lounge not that long ago. What is there in the lounge to inspire true argument and venom? What irrationality inspired that? Or, to go to similarly extreme examples, what of the ills committed under Communist Russia or China?

I do not belief that it has to do with any belief structure or another. Each belief structure does tend to focus that energy in particular ways, as you have described above, but the energy and drive to do these things to our fellow man comes from within each person, not without. And in the mean time, there is no "benevolent" belief structure that is rational enough that cannot be perverted to make a more vicious frame once these drives occur.

[Deep13]

24. Okay, pretty common memes you are hitting, so let's go through them.

Religionists prey on hopelessness. When someone has hit "rock bottom" instead of offering a helping hand, it makes promises it cannot keep and backs them up with threats it may or may not be able to enforce.

"Why do we see so many in Palestine willing to strap on that vest, and so few here in the US, where arguably as drastic of things are preached every week?"

In a word: Islam. Many Muslims are taught and some believe that suicide in the battle against Allah's enemies will not only guarantee a heroic reward for the martyr, but will also give a free pass to a large group of friends and family. Muslims believe that after death, ones sins are weighed against his virtues (including merely religious virtues). Only if the "good" outweighs the "bad" will that person get into heaven. The special consideration for a martyr's friends and family bypasses that process. It is no wonder they are celebrated as heroes. It is not unlike the promise of eternal reward that waited for those Japanese warriors who gave their lives for the god emperor.

Suicide is simply not in the Christian tradition. Some horrible things have been done in the name of the Christian gods, but suicide by and large has not been one of them.

"Moderate satisfaction with the quality of life and ones outlook for the future seems to have more to do with the willingness to do drastic things than any particular belief system, however illogical."

Naturally. Why is that illogical? If a person is not desperate, he or she will not do desperate things. Also, don't forget why Palestinians are in that position in the first place. It is essentially because of religious prejudice between Israeli Jews and Muslims. If Israel and the Palestinians really wants to end the violence, they should make Israel a secular state and give citizenship to the Muslim Palestinians.

"People will find reasons to be against others. Its our nature."

Yes, because we are irrational. Religion exacerbates irrationality. I'm not claiming that religion is the only irrationality, but only that it is the most pervasive.

"Hell, we had that big fight in the lounge not that long ago. What is there in the lounge to inspire true argument and venom? What irrationality inspired that?"

I can't answer that because I don't know what "fight" you are talking about. Anyway, calling an internet argument a "fight" strikes me as being a bit naive.

"Or, to go to similarly extreme examples, what of the ills committed under Communist Russia or China?"

This subject has been beaten to death. I will concede that religion is no worse than irrational beliefs in Stalinist Communism, except in one respect. Communism ended. Without the threat of eternal damnation or the carrot of eternal reward, Stalinism just does not have the staying power of Abrahamic religion. Also, don't forget that for all its evil, the Stalinists were instrumental in ending the other great irrational evil of the 20th century. Of course the Chinese gave up all but the pretense of Maoism in the 1980s.

You have to remember that Lenin found an audience that was reacting against the oppressive church-supported monarchy. He also found an audience of people trained for centuries to obey their leadership. While it was atheistic, there was nothing rational about what Lenin or his successors did. For skeptics, atheism is a conclusion after a critical examination of the evidence. For Lenin-communists, it is a precondition that is assumed without real examination as a reaction to feudalism.

Likewise, while atheistic in name, Maoism relied for its legitimacy on the Chinese concept of a mandate from heaven, as had all Chinese rulers. Maoism is as irrational and extremist as any religious system. So I'm wondering why you thing either that or Stalinism proves your point.

"I do not belief that it has to do with any belief structure or another. Each belief structure does tend to focus that energy in particular ways, as you have described above, but the energy and drive to do these things to our fellow man comes from within each person, not without. And in the mean time, there is no "benevolent" belief structure that is rational enough that cannot be perverted to make a more vicious frame once these drives occur."

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. Not all belief systems are the same, though I understand why liberal believers like to think they are. Can you picture a Jainist strapping on an explosive vest? If Christians were not convinced that Jews had killed JC and if they did not believe the blood libels, then Ann Frank would today be an anonymous old woman in a German nursing home. Likewise, if so many Christians did not believe that the a person acquires a soul at conception, Dr. Tiller would be alive today. If that were true, every abortion really would be a murder and people like the one who killed Tiller would be heroes for saving innocent lives. If people did not accept the irrationality of racism, there would have been no slavery, no Civil War and Ralph Abernathy and Bull Conner might have been neighbors and friends. If this country were not so Evangelical, Bush would never have been elected. So, I have to reject your idea that religion merely reflects a subjective bad intention. Priests use religion to make people do things. They can't do that to those who are unwilling to take their divine words for it.

[Orsino]

17. Yeah, there are some beliefs that seem to cause only misery.

I'm not sure a general rule is going be useful, in a world in which such toxic memes survive.

[MissMillie]

2. Interestingly enough... I agree w/ both quakerboy and Deep13

And you know how that drives me crazy.

[quakerboy]

11. I agree with him to a point

The particular belief structure channels the drives to specific action. So one person may end up in a bomb vest, where another represses their child's sexuality, and a third sends death threats to a rapper they feel has threatened another rapper. I just believe that the beliefs are not why they feel a need to take action in general, they only direct the specific action taken.

But you say more. In what way do you agree with me, and in what way do you prefer his (obviously inferior irrational needing to be destroyed wanna fight about it) viewpoint.

[MissMillie]

16. I guess the words "as a general rule"

are key here

Generalizations are easy, but there are always exceptions.

And I also believe that while groups of people often tend to do things to hurt other groups of people, we all, in the end, decide if, and what group to be aligned with.

And no, I donwanna fight about it. I'm afraid I might hurt someone.

[quakerboy]

19. Find me a rule without an exception

and I will show you something that hasn't been researched enough.

[MissMillie]

21. find you one....

The rule that has no exceptions is....

There's an exception to every rule (except maybe in mathematics... a subject on which I am no expert).

[Deep13]

26. Kind of like how the only constant is change. nt

[Deep13]

25. If you mean rules concerning human behavior, that is true.

History is largely the study of those exceptions.

[MorningGlow]

5. Yes, I agree with you

I believe that the seed of human cruelty is present in some people before they ascribe to their thought x or belief y, and they subsequently manage to cram their cruelty into their faith, square-peg-into-round-hole-like, to justify their actions. Most definitely.

[quakerboy]

6. All I needed was one validation

my newly confirmed belief structure now demands that that I convert or destroy all other views of this issue. Let the pogroms begin!

[MorningGlow]

8. Coolness; off you go, then

And remember--blood comes out of clothing better with cold water, not hot. Godspeed. :hi:

[quakerboy]

10. my beliefs have changed since we last spoke

they now demand regular dips in hydrogen peroxide. Its the only way to be clean enough. This is a dirty dirty world. it must be cleansed...

[merh]

18. Much like the conservatives who are rewriting the Bible to remove

the liberal messages and references.

[petronius]

12. I think we should avoid simpleminded conclusions - Person A believes x, therefore

Person A did y - beliefs, opinions, and experiences do influence people's actions so it would be foolish to ignore factors like that. Of course, it's also true that humans seem to have a natural predilection for fucking with The Other and we shouldn't ignore that either...

[quakerboy]

15. Ah, but without simple conclusions

how shall we categorize, box up, and subsequently ignore the greater universe that attempts to inundate and destroy us with its massive number of considerations?

(ya like how I just anthromorphised existance, btw?)

[rug]

13. Sure. The id trumps the superego.

[quakerboy]

14. your psycho talk scares and confuses me

I label you "out". Convert or be converted!

[ThomCat]

20. Yes, people are inherently cruel to people outside their groups.

It takes a lot of training to become compassionate, and very little prodding to become savage. :(

Almost any believe system can be the catalyst for cruelty. So blaming the believe system is a bit misguided. Certainly the belief system is involved in the individual situation, but it is definitely not responsible for our capacity for violence and cruelty. It is just the lens used to amplify that cruelty in each culture.