Religion is not harmless

[mudesi]

In a perfect world, everybody with beliefs would have them and keep them to themselves without imposing those beliefs on society at large. The founding fathers recognized this problem and attempted to separate church and state with little success.

In reality, this stuff is dangerous. To deny this fact would be dishonest. When the religious people have numbers on their side, bad things happen, because now they are society at large.

There is one supreme court justice left before Roe v. Wade is overturned.

How many states discriminate against homosexuals?

How many women have been denied contraception?

How many children are being denied a proper education in their science classrooms?

How many abortion clinics have been bombed?

How many people have strapped bombs to their chests, believing they will die a noble death by killing others and be in paradise with 72 virgins?

How many millions of women on this planet are forced to wear a burka, are stoned to death for merely speaking to another man other than their husband?

How many gay people have been murdered simply for being gay, either by citizens or by a nation state?


"But you're confusing bigotry and hatred with religion!" goes the counter argument.


No, I'm not.


It all goes together. The teachings of peace, love, forgiveness, and good will to all are intertwined with bigotry, hatred, and hypocrisy, because it is all glued together with ignorance. When you don't know how to think for yourself, it's easy for those in power to tell you what to think.

Thus Osama Bin Laden can convince 19 people to fly planes into buildings just like George W. Bush can convince a majority of Americans that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It's the naive gullibility that comes from a lifetime of believing in fairy tales and rituals and superstition.

There are those who say I ought to respect others' beliefs. Perhaps I would if we lived in that perfect world where those beliefs didn't affect the human rights of everyone else. Sure, it would be nice if people just went to church, prayed to their God(s), and kept to themselves. For the most part, that may be the case.

But what I'm seeing are two presidential candidates, neither of which support gay marriage, because whichever one does is sure to lose the election. I'm seeing pharmacists being given the legal power to deny contraception to those who need it. I'm seeing a supreme court consisting of four (out of nine) fundamentalist judges. I'm seeing school books with warning stickers, lying to children about evolution. I'm seeing women and homosexuals being stoned to death. Abortion clinics have been bombed.

These things are happening. These things are real. One cannot claim that religion has nothing to do with it. One cannot even honestly claim that religion only has something to do with it. The reality is religion has everything to do with it.

And while I know I'll be bombarded by a plethora of replies by believers here, claiming to be part of that group of people who keep their beliefs to themselves, I wonder if they'll be capable of admitting to the realities I outlined two paragraphs ago. I wonder if they'll be able to explain the causes of those realities as something other than religion. I'm all ears, believe it or not.

[malaise]

1. Great post

Time for some :popcorn:

Here we go again. :D

[Robb]

2. With all due respect,

...I think you're confusing zealotry with religion. :shrug:

[Boojatta]

4. Is theocracy by definition an example of zealotry?

As of what year did theocracy become an example of zealotry?

[usregimechange]

13. Yes and always.

[Zhade]

36. Plenty of non-zealots are superstitious for no good reason.

What you're talking about is a difference in degree, not kind.

[defendandprotect]

45. Organized patriarchal religion is zealous patriarchy ---

and Christianity's Medieval period was a setback for morality ---

The many "god" myths EXACTLY like the Jesus myth were oral renderings --

maybe a stone marking or two --

but the Bible was used to cement patriarchy ---

Tens of thousands of years after attacks on women --- the majority of the world's populations ---

they found a way to force their one-all-male god and male superiority on the people.


The world was turned upside down --- records, libraries destroyed --- knowledge/information

destroyed ---

[Mojambo]

3. Very well said.

Hope yer wearing asbestos underwear.

[TZ]

5. ..

IBTMRT--In before the move to R+T..:popcorn:

[BlooInBloo]

6. hahaha! Religion is damn near the definition of *harmFUL*.

[Blarch]

7. I find religion to be disgusting...

Why should I show respect to a person who worships a god that WANTS ME MURDERED ? ...They deserve zero respect.

Deuteronomy 17
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

I would rather worship Satan ...come to think of it, what has he done that was so bad ?

http://www.surrealismnow.com/images/710_1_1a_KRIS_KUKSI_The_Throne_of_Lucifer_by_kuksi_Acrylic_on_canvas,_50_x_40_inches,_2004.jpg

[roguevalley]

18. the interpretation of people five thousand years ago does not an

interpretation of God make. I don't give a damn about the bible. Its a great read and all that but it doesn't have a damned thing to do with God for me. The bible is only one people's view of God. There are dozens and millions out there, all of them available to read. But that doesn't make them right. hate the dogma. That is what I do. I love God but I hate the dogma.

[Zhade]

37. Of course, there is zero evidence for this "god" (or any of them).

I'm glad you're peaceful, though.

[roguevalley]

44. there is no evidence if you don't want to see it. I'm good with whatever

anyone feels or not. its all personal and frankly, I just hope that people are happy in their lives. that's all. :)

[blueatheart]

163. I can appreciate your view on your first post

but please do not assume that those that do not believe in god choose not to see the evidence. Many atheist have at one time sought to find god or once believed in god.

[Blarch]

69. Fuck that.

the bottom line is that they worship a god that wants me murdered. They worship a god who demands that infants are murdered and dashed to pieces ...then he wants the mothers raped.

They are scumbags who deserve zero respect. Only a sick monster would worship such a god.

[SidneyCarton]

129. Fine, we're obviously monsters.

You've proved it, all that remains is to strangle the last believer in the entrails of the last priest to make the world safe for reason and peace, get to it, you've got a lot of people to kill.

[Moochy]

157. nice projection

[Boojatta]

8. Why don't we hear more about abstenance-only religious education?

In some countries, converting from childhood indecision to mature/adult adherence puts you at risk of eventual punishment for apostasy.

[defendandprotect]

46. Greadt idea ... !!!

Especially to relieve youngsters from having all this crap thrust on them before they

even get the chance to develop their own minds --- to understand their own thoughts

and conscience ---

[notfullofit]

9. OOOOOOH You are brave!

I am getting lambasted by some here for posting a thread about a mass execution going to take place in Iran tomorrow.

You surely do need your asbestos suit.

[Causarius]

10. How many children are being denied a proper education in their science classrooms?

How many children are being denied a proper education in every single classroom in a government-run public school?

All of them.

[WhollyHeretic]

12. I think you took a wrong turn in one of dem' der' internet tubes

Enjoy your stay.

[gatorboy]

15. Is this the mod's day off or something?

[gatorboy]

17. Slow D&D day?

I'm sure schools run by your ilk would fair better? Sorry. Private schools are closing daily due to financial mismanagement. A conservative trait.

[Occulus]

40. A proper science education

requires the absence of religion and its trappings.

PERIOD.

[defendandprotect]

48. We can only say that religion fosters ignorance of science . . .

but that's nothing new --- these are the library burners --- the organization which

destroys any knowlege which they don't agreewith ---

The great libraries of the world were destroyed by "Christians" ---

[DrCory]

62. Care to explain?

"The great libraries of the world were destroyed by "Christians" ---"

Give some examples.

[defendandprotect]

89. Galileo and Evolution weren't the first or last attacked by Christianity ---

I think we probably need a separdate thread on this . . .
but, I'll begin here ---

The suppression of scientist Galileo and the reality that our planet travels around the sun -
rather than our planet being the CENTER of the universe as taught by Christiantiy isn't the
first nor last of its battle with science - and that is obvious still today as Christians
fight the science of Evolution - but to be fair to the Vatican, it's position now sees no
problem with the existence of both Evolution and Creation.

And, as we know, Darwin and his contempories all long knew the theory of Evolution but most
were afraid to take on the church. HOWEVER . . . long before that the theory was known.
Same with atomic theory.

In order for patriarchy to take hold in the ancient world -- a world which was majorly
matriarchally-based -- it had to destroy the old. A new theory of male-superiority could not
be supported simply on male "say-so." A new all-male god was introduced. However, it wasn't
sufficient until the writing of the Bible which was the Hebrew effort to cement the patriarchy.

It is in the overturning of matriarchal societies to patriarchy where violence is introduced
to the world. In order for women to become the "outsider," history had to be rewritten.

Before libraries, great civilizations had to be destroyed.

The coming of the Dark Age in Europe followed the destruction of the great Greco-Celto-Roman Civilization in the 5th C AD. A Dark Age in the Aegean followed the destruction of the great
Minoan-Mycenean Civilization of Greece around 1000 b.c. - and a Dark Age in the Near East followed the destruction of the great matriarchal city state of Sumer around 2500 b.c.

Pythagoras taught theory of the shifting poles . . .
spherical shape of the earth -- cataclysmic evolution, periodic shifting of the poles, etal.

The "ancient maps" of unknown origin were rescued by the Christians when they burned the great
library at Alexandria in Egypt in the 5 C and had them taken to Constantinople.

The great Sumerian civilization had knowledge of astronomy which exceeded that of modern man until
a.d. 1930 for it discovered the 9th planet - Pluto - and only in 1781 and 1846 respectively had Wm. Herschel discovered Uranus, the 7th planet, and Leverrier - Neptune - the 8th. Yet on seals dug up at ancient sites in what was Sumer, our sun is shown with all NINE PLANETS revoling AROUND IT.

At this moment I'm not totally familiar with all that might be on the internet about this --
I will check at some point -- but the basis of what I'm saying to you is that we have been
made violent and dumb by patriarchy and Christianity.

[MullenBank]

11. Damn skippy

Sam Harris said it best when he said... and I'm paraphrasing... What are you guys, fucking nuts? How can you believe this stupid shit? Even you dumb ass moderates-- you just provide cover for the real crazies. Wake up and smell the coffee-- theism is for the birds... or something along those lines....

[Edweird]

14. I agree.

I do give people room to be themselves and believe as they choose as long as they respect my boundaries. If they push me it gets fun as there are many many contradictions and hippocracies that keep them tap dancing and doing motorboat imitations "but...but...but..."

[salinen]

16. Indeed

and the opposite of religion is not socialism or communism, as they'd have us think. It's no wonder the crowd that can be convinced of talking snakes can also be led to worship capitalism. By it's nature, capitalism is anti-humanity. The law of supply and demand is as cruel a philosophy as has ever been deposited on the gullible.

[struggle4progress]

19. Gandhi was motivated by the Bhagavad-Gita, MLK by the New Testament: I am glad they did not

keep their beliefs to themselves

Human exploitation, intolerance, oppression and violence all have long histories -- much longer histories (in fact) than any particular religion you can name: exploitation, intolerance, oppression and violence have reappeared time and again, in culture after culture, regardless of whatever religion was supposedly dominant

If you want to end exploitation, intolerance, oppression and violence, you must first understand, from concrete examples, the contexts that permit them. Your empty idiotic sloganeering does not help us in this regard: when resources are limited, a greedy sense of entitlement and lack of empathy are all too common, and authoritarians always seek to concentrate political power in their own hands through divide-and-conquer politics -- that will be true even if you could somehow completely extirpate religion from the face of the earth

[Zhade]

38. They would have done the same without religion -- or do you think less of them than I do?

I suspect they would have been every bit as decent without religion as with.

[struggle4progress]

86. Ex Falso Quodlibet

Counterfactual hypotheses engender contradictions, from which arbitrary conclusions are deducible. Otherwise said: an implication, the antecedent of which never holds, is true

If Gandhi were not a Hindu, pigs would have wings and nest in chimneys is an example, just as deep and meaningful as your claim

[DeSwiss]

57. "...if you could somehow completely extirpate religion from the face of the earth."

Yeah, but at least if this were so, then we'd know it was us "what done it to ourselves."

No cop-outs. No head games. No storm gods. We willed this god into being, and so it can be "un-willed." Just like everything else can, in time.

[struggle4progress]

88. REligion does not seem to inspire the majority of "cop-outs" and "head-games" I encounter daily

so I suspect Dr. DeSwiss's Patented Cure is the usual ineffective swamp water and snake oil

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Thank you. Precisely right. nt

[Mnemosyne]

20. Hear, hear, ls. KnR n/t

[undergroundpanther]

21. lynyrd_skynyrd you are 100%correct

Look at the "bible" it talks all the warm fuzzy alongside kill every creature that lives,all that defy god will be tortured forever.
The bible is both nice and just psychopathic.And the god that book describes even jesus the old and new testaments are filled with Nice verses and horrific verses.IT HAS BOTH

Organized religion is a social sickness.A mass socially sanctioned exploitative delusion.
A delusion that comforts believers,lets them face death without breaking down maybe, yet in others it gives believers permission to do horrible things to non believers or other types of beliefs or to or to abuse and deny human rights to people they think god disapproves of..or it lets christians by-stand without shame while other more zealot christians do horrible things to people.

Heaven is a great reward to the obedient christian,but when the master(god, jesus) you look up to is an abusive two faced psychopath holding a carrot and beating you with a metaphysical stick for not conforming what do you expect out of that shit?? Christianity and the bible has NO PURPOSE anymore if one wants to grow up. It does nothing other than reassuring insecure people who may regret putting off their dreams,because a life not lived does not matter because there will be a BIGGER reward one day.Christianity is Narcissism,deified. The other promise of the bible god is someday all the assholes that did wrong to you or other believers will be chastised by your god,humiliated or worse.

Narcissism and cognitive dissonance deified through an old book,is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Organized religion is a crime,it does not make for an ability to have relationships with non believers,because god gets in the way so easy..Christianity is toxic.

[Sanctified]

22. Neither is Politics, Politicians have killed more people than Priests. n/t

[DeSwiss]

59. I'm not so sure about that....

...because the Roman emperors all thought they were gods, and the Egyptian pharaohs held similar beliefs. And most wars generally have religion as its most central nexis for conflict. And thus paved the way, from murder to genocide

And the preists and religion is always there and at minimum, accomplises.

[bananas]

134. They would have done the same without religion -- or do you think more of them than I do?

I suspect they would have been every bit as indecent without religion as with.

[undeterred]

23. "I'm seeing women and homosexuals being stoned to death. Abortion clinics have been bombed."

I'm seeing someone who takes the actions of a few individuals and smears a huge group of people with their behavior. You're not all ears, you're all mouth.

[defendandprotect]

49. Unfortunately, these actions are pushed and preached by patriarchal religions ---

It wasn't a few poor miserable Christians who took after abortion doctors to murder them --

behind them were leaders of Christian groups/churches who told them to "act as if abortion

were murder!" --


And Christian churches have been heavily involved in FINANCING the anti-abortion movement --

housing it and directing it !!


Intolerance for homosexuals is still being preached from Christian pulpits ---

and such preachings encourage intolerance and violence against homosexuals --- !!!


These are patriarchal religions based on oppression of women, denial of reproductive freedom --

[puebloknot]

55. To see how deeply the religious right has insinuated itself ...

... into government and corporate power at all levels, read "The Family," by Jeff Sharlet. It describes -- would you believe? -- patriarchy gone mad. (Or maybe it's more correct to say "madder.")

But, then, Hillary Clinton snuggles up to these people. The only way a woman can have any power in this society is to become "one of the guys," so to speak.

[defendandprotect]

90. Someone at DU posted some info on it which I've read . . .

but hadn't heard about them previously ---

As a recovering Catholic, I can very definitely say that I'm concerned about the huge build-up

of Catholics in our Congress --- and the Supreme Court is overloaded with religion, it seems. . .

Scalia! Thomas!

[mudesi]

84. Those were just two examples

I also pointed out that evolution textbooks have had stickers placed on them. That the supreme court is one judge away from overturning roe v. wade. That Barack Obama and John McCain both do not support gay marriage.

Why do you suppose that is?

[gtar100]

152. To answer what may be obvious...

"Why do you suppose that is?"

I can't say for sure what's in the heart of Obama or McCain, but their public stance on gay marriage, from my perspective, appears to come from the fear of losing support from so many Americans who do not support gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Hence, the reason goes back to religion as the root cause of their discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

When I let go of religion, Christianity in particular, the fact that someone else was gay became a non-issue for me.

[Soup Bean]

24. Everything in Moderation

Too much of anything is bad for you, including too much religion.

[SidDithers]

25. Happy to be the 10th rec...

good post :applause:

Sid

[frogmarch]

26. You said a mouthful there!

A hearty K&R! :thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

27. lol zealots

[ismnotwasm]

28. Playing devils advocate here

(Yes, pun intended) What would happen without religion? Why did it evolve as a emotional/social response? I know the standard thought on explaining the unknown with creative stories, justifying pain, disease, death and the environment-- but religion in one form or another has always been here. We don't have an population sample of a historical alternate to compare it to. Unless you want to count certain periods of time in communist countries, then it just went underground.

I don't like religion. I'm not hostile, but I don't like it for personal reasons, the main one is I've yet to find a religion that doesn't include misogyny in it's doctrines or dogma. No matter how they try to pretty it up, straight reading of most classic religious texts basically tell you women are shit and patriarchy rules. So fuck religion. (Ok, maybe a little hostile)

However, when I think it through, I go back to my starting point of not only why religion, but why the faith response? Why religious conversion? A little Freud maybe? The primitive part of the brain still trying to stave away fear of pain and dark and death? Or is it something more?

Regardless, Religion has a long history of being instrumental in causing or contributing to certain social ills, then jumping in with a faith based "fix". Just look at the history of colonization.

If we hadn't developed religion, but a deep awe and respect for our surroundings, our environment, and each other along with loving care and concern I wonder what history would have been like. A feeling of connectedness with the larger universe, and as we grew in scientific knowledge knowing we came from the dust of stars would be a joy.

Religions often try to teach something like, but get caught up in power games. The fundies of all types are desperately ridiculous, yet have enormous political power, and are the most destructive social force on the planet it seems to me.

[Zhade]

39. Humans seek patterns, even when not there. Used to be a survival mechanism.

Then it evolved - hah, irony! - into belief structures unsupported by anything but wishful thinking and circular reasoning.

[Lyric]

54. Religion is mankind's greatest ego-trip of all time.

Religion exists because human beings are too arrogant as a species to accept that we are a minor blip on a cosmic scale, and destined for oblivion. Our ancestors became convinced that we were "special", and needed something to back up that assertion. They invented gods, goddesses, and other deities--magical, powerful, all-knowing beings who specifically choose *us* to watch over, protect, reward, and (most importantly) punish.

Having established that a "natural hierarchy" beyond the food chain exists, the next logical step was to establish a hierarchy *within* the species. Thus racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and other social ills were born. Ultimately, every single one of these concepts is tightly tied to religion. They are all the tools that the religious elite used to control the masses, thereby increasing their own status, power, and wealth a thousandfold.

Common people use religion as psychological soma; a balm for the psyche when life is challenging, and a stroke to the ego. Everyone feels "special" because they are loved and watched over by a God or Goddess who knows the personal details of their life, and can intervene if things get too tough to handle. "God only gives you what you can deal with" was the mantra of my childhood--with the implication being that, if something you COULDN'T deal with happened, God would take care of it.

Having a God is like having a billionaire uncle who lives in another country. You never see him, you never talk to him, but you have faith that if you take care not to offend him, you'll receive some kind of reward from him eventually. It's like an ex-smoker keeping one pack of cigarettes stashed away in the freezer. You might not need them now, but it's soothing to know that IF anything ever goes horribly wrong, and you can't LIVE without a smoke, they're there. God is like the training wheels on your bicycle; the ones that made you feel safer, even when you were already riding on two wheels without them. God is a security blanket, kept folded safely and hidden deep in the closet; you never see it or touch it, but you feel comforted in the knowledge that it's there. God is the can of mace you've never had to use, the nightlight in your bedroom, and the double-deadbolt lock on your door, even when your nearest neighbor lives five miles away. God is what gets you through the night when your parents are gone, and you realize that there is no person out there who will ever love you unconditionally again. Not even your spouse. But "God" will.

Some of the people I admire the most in this world are people who sincerely believe in God. I don't agree with them, but I understand. Honestly, what I said above would still be true whether God exists or not. It's hard to deny that people often use God and religion as a source of comfort and psychological safety. Maybe life is easier that way. I've often wished that I could bring myself to believe in a God, but the closest I can come to it is this: while I utterly reject the idea that there's some deity out there who personally watches over every single inhabitant of planet Earth, past and present, I *do* believe that when you follow the chain of the Universe out far enough, you come to a dead end. The Big Bang. That ball of matter that exploded and made our universe had to come from *somewhere*. Perhaps there was/is something bigger than us involved in that. Something SO big and SO alien to us that we couldn't even comprehend it. Something so enormous that, in its perception, galaxies look like small whirls of light--here now, and gone in a moment, like a firefly. We are smaller than atoms to this thing, and of about as much concern. When was the last time that you were personally concerned with the existence of the atoms contained within a single skin cell of your body?

If a deity ever presents itself to the world (not just to me, but to everyone) and demands recognition, I'll give it. But even then, it won't be because I love that deity. It will be because that deity could do horrible things to me, and I'm afraid of it. It won't be worship--it will be appeasement, and a desperate hope that appeasement will somehow work. A real God to contend with would be a terrifying thing for humankind.

[DeSwiss]

60. One word.

EXCELLENT!

[blueatheart]

121. I concur.. e.o.m.

[treestar]

29. I agree,it is hard to find any believers who actually fulfill the

Christian ideal. If they did, there would be full help for the poor; complete understanding and tolerance for others; not judgmental indfference.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. how about the gentleman in your avatar and the other gentleman

on your post?

Are they not both religious Christians? Do they not both proclaim that their faith is a major motivating factor?

[MellowDem]

30. You are stating the obvious

There are people who believe in religion that do bad things, it is true. I'm not sure about this though:

"In a perfect world, everybody with beliefs would have them and keep them to themselves without imposing those beliefs on society at large."

I think that everyone has their own beliefs and in some way tries to impose them on society at large, whether through voting or other means. Obviously, democracy is usually considered a justifiable way to impose one's beliefs on society. I don't think it would be a perfect world, that world you describe. For example, you being on this message board, stating this message, is an attempt to eventually change people's minds, which is definitely one way to impose one's beliefs.

But you talk as if there is one Truth, one obvious Human Rights List that everyone knows and agrees on. You could round up a group of atheists who would disagree on many things. Hell, you will find atheists who are homophobic for cultural reasons. In fact, the idea of equality is cultural as well, and also intertwined with religion. Religion changes as society changes and vice-versa.

And what I don't really get is what is the point of your post? To laugh triumphantly as you make those believers squirm, make them admit that religion can be harmful? You are deluding yourself if you think that all those things you mention, all those problems you see would go away if there was no religion. Your thought process is way too simple. Religion is intertwined with culture, history, geography, resources, etc. etc. In many ways, religion is a product of those things. Take away religion and you still have a lot of factors left that formed a certain belief system in the first place and will continue to do so.

To me, the whole point of this post is to say how religion is an impediment to a utopian society. If that was not the intent of your post, sorry, but it was not very clear in the first place. And I would have to disagree with this point as well. Taking away religion does not get us a step closer (or further) from a utopian dreamland.

Also, lumping everyone who believes into one neat category and blaming a host of problems on one factor as a way to justify your disrespect of other's beliefs is shallow reasoning.

[Az]

31. Religion itself is not the problem

People are going to gather together and share their ideas about what the world is all about. Its natural.

What is a problem is dogma. Specifically Authoritative Dogma. And such a thing is not relegated to just religion. Political systems are entirely capable of promoting their own dogmatic views.

[tbyg52]

33. Yup. Spiritual religion as opposed to authoritative religion.

Kinda like D vs. R...... ;)

[Zhade]

41. It's not just that, Az. It's also believing in things for which there is no good reason to believe.

Things for which there is no evidence -- like, say, Santa, or Jesus.

Or WMDs in Iraq.

THAT'S the danger, as the Iraqi people could tell us.

[DaveJ]

42. I agree, people are going to act with or without religion

One might as well say that all clubs and organizations are evil.

I do not understand why people make such blanket accusations instead of blaming the individuals.

I've always thought that about half the people in the world are jerks, regardless of the spiritual beliefs. I actually have respect for people of faith because they acknowledge that they believe in something beyond their understanding. Everyone is guided by things they believe yet cannot prove.

[defendandprotect]

50. Organized patriarchal religion is much more dangerous than that . . .

First, it's at war with more than half the world's population -- i.e., FEMALES ---
and continues to be. The Vatican, for instance, does not recognize the full personhood
of females as it recognizes the full personhood of males.

The patriarchal effort to control women and reproduction has brought us overpopulation now
about to reach 7 BILLION.

Patriarchal religions underpin patriarchal superiority -- and its violence.

Patriarchal religions provide the warrior, vengeful "god" of the Bible ---
not a model that has brought peace to the world!

The Bible was written to cement patriarchy --

Additionally, "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are dangerous concepts
-- exploitive concepts which have brought us global warming ---

These one-male-god ideas of the world teach exploitation of nature, natural resources,
animal life -- and even of other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

Nor does religion seem to do much for mental health --- !!!



--- true spirituality requires no middlemen --- and nature is our pathway to those
human connections.

[DeSwiss]

61. Very well said.

We can split hairs until the cows come home. I simply want religion and those of its adherents, to own-up to its own extremes. As you said: religion always has and does "promote ideals of exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal life -- and even of other human beings according to various myths of inferiority."

It has always been the impetus of racism and sexism most certainly. That is well documented and cannot be escaped. When you become part of a religion, you become part of its legacy. And when fellow adherents commit atrocities, you can't get that stink off your shoe with a stick. It follows you wherever you go. You are connected to it whether you want to be or not. The pedophiles, the rapists, the fomenters of hatred against gays which justifies the denial of full citizenship, and has all too often ended assault or death. And as others have said above, the continued promotion of beliefs that are not remotely possible or true, reduces it to so many ancient fictional tales. Enlightening maybe, but don't base your life on it.

The danger as I see it, is that by not holding all of religion responsible for the actions of its extremists, is they give them free reign in defining their religion. They are the squeaky wheels lacking the oil of reason, something so-called moderate religionists often claim to possess. But worse, by not repudiating these extremists then the plight and the lives of religion's victims become trivialized. Allowing them to escape any responsibility for the acts committed by fellow believers. No matter where they hang-out on the religious continuum.

And when the outcome of elections hang upon groups of voters who have been conditioned to replicate this madness in the forms of people such as George W. Bush and John McCain, they become the enablers of madmen. This is why everyone, especially those who claim to believe in democracy and religion must argue the loudest against such people, for they endanger us all. Otherwise we are simply ignoring probably the single greatest threat to our civil liberties.

- When is enough, enough?

[defendandprotect]

91. Agree . .

:)

[tbyg52]

32. Thank you. Here's my problem with most (not all) religions

They think I'm going to their version of hell if I don't do what they say I should do and think what they say I should think.

OK, maybe I am going there, in the sense that I think death is (unfortunately) the end. (I'd like to believe in reincarnation, but, as Hemmingway said, "wouldn't it be pretty to think so.")

Basically, they wish me ill, even if what I'm doing doesn't affect or hurt them or the commons in any way. What's not to dislike/be wary of?

[TexasObserver]

34. Nailed it. Religion is not a victimless crime.

If there is a God, he/she/it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Religion, which has long been the enemy of righteousness. Religion is about controlling humans while they are here on earth, with fear and promises of blessings, both now and in the hereafter.

[Zhade]

35. Hear, hear! Another example - the Catholic church killed 3/4 of Europe's population.

They thought cats were evil, so killed countless numbers of them -- allowing rats to spread the Black Death.

[defendandprotect]

51. Crusades produced so many wealthy/land owning widows ... Witch Hunts were their next best idea -- !

[struggle4progress]

85. It's tiresome to have to repeatedly address such unsupported fantasies

Cats can transmit plague
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=157515&mesg_id=157541

There is still dispute about exactly what modern disease or diseases the "Black Death" was
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=157515&mesg_id=157545

[defendandprotect]

92. Certainly, you're not trying to claim that the Witch Hunts didn't occur . . . ???

With the witches . . . cats were burned . . .

[struggle4progress]

105. You don't supply links -- and evidently you don't read links when supplied

You apparently want to spin some indefinite story about the Black Death as a consequence of the Church burning cats. It is a short and easily-stated accusation -- for which, however, you supply no evidence

The links I supplied showed that: (1) cats themselves can serve as plague carriers, and (2) the Black Death has not been conclusively identified as plague, and in particular there seem not to have been the reports of dead rats one might expect from a plague outbreak

[defendandprotect]

113. You are totally misunderstand this conversation . . .

it not about rats or a plague . . .

It is about Witch Hunts . . . and patriarchal violence ---

Again --- it's about Witch Hunts - that is violent oppression of females ---

and organized patriarchal religion --- and male violence ---

*****************************************************************************

[struggle4progress]

123. let's go through it slowly

#35 seeks to blame the Black Death on the Catholic church: the evident intent of that post is to claim that the Church burned witches and their cats, leading to an explosion in the rat population and thence to an epidemic plague. Your posts #92 and #113 attempt to support that narrative

But opinions should follow the facts, not the other way around

Case Study:
The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750

For three centuries of early modern European history, diverse societies were consumed by a panic over alleged witches in their midst ... The witch-hunts of early modern Europe took place against a backdrop of rapid social, economic, and religious transformation ... Jenny Gibbons' analysis ties the witch-hunts to other "panics" in early modern Europe: Traditional <tolerant> attitudes towards witchcraft began to change in the 14th century, at the very end of the Middle Ages. ... Early 14th century central Europe was seized by a series of rumor-panics. Some malign conspiracy (Jews and lepers, Moslems, or Jews and witches) was attempting to destroy the Christian kingdoms through magick and poison. After the terrible devastation caused by the Black Death (1347-1349), these rumors increased in intensity and focused primarily on witches and "plague-spreaders" ...

... the clash between institutional Catholicism and emergent Protestantism contributed to the collapse of a stable world-view, which eventually led to panic and hyper-suspiciousness on the part of Catholic and Protestant authorities alike. Writes Nachman Ben-Yehuda, "This helps us understand why only the most rapidly developing countries, where the Catholic church was weakest, experienced a virulent witch craze (i.e., Germany, France, Switzerland). Where the Catholic church was strong (Spain, Italy, Portugal) hardly any witch craze occurred ...

"The vast majority of witches were condemned by secular courts," with local courts especially noted for their persecutory zeal ...

... the most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 per cent were men." Briggs adds that "these figures are chilling enough, but they have to be set in the context of what was probably the harshest period of capital punishments in European history" ...

So let us review where this takes us. Is there good direct evidence that the Black Death was rat-spread bubonic plague? No: there are no known records of mass rat die-offs. Might some churchmen have attributed the Black Death to cats? Possibly: if it were bubonic plague, then cats could have contributed to its spread

How widespread were cats in late medieval Europe? The answer must be: they were ubiquitous. European peasants would not have regarded cats as useful work animals (such as dogs or horses) but they would have wanted them around anywa -- because cats eat rodents, which inconveniently chew holes in things and threaten subsistence farmers with starvation by raiding their grain stores

Could alleged Church burning of cats with witches have had a significant impact on the cat population?

First, the "witch" trials executions were mostly carried out by secular authorities

But more importantly, the Black Death occurs before the witch hysteria period. If 50000 "witches" were burned during the 300 years in which witch burnings were common, that's an average of a "witch" murdered every other day in Europe during the hysteria; if each such witch was burned with three cats, it could scarcely come (on average) to an additional ten dead cats a week in Europe in the course of post-plague executions, and hence to a much smaller number in the period prior to the Black Death

To expect a significant impact on the rat population from witchburning in the late 1340s is therefore laughable. And to blame the Catholic church for the Black Death is merely a slander

[defendandprotect]

124. Msg #35 was a passing one liner . . .

We're not concerned with cats or rats ---

this is a discussion about the Vatican's oppression of females, for one ---

and COINCIDENTALLY they did burn cats with the "witches" . . .

NOTICE . . . I'm making no correlation with the plague --- !!!

It is a reflection on the insanity of those persecuting these women --- that's all.


Re this . . .

First, the "witch" trials executions were mostly carried out by secular authorities

No matter how secular, the influence of religion in these judgments cannot be overlooked.


Meanwhile, my original points were that the Crusades had created a huge number of widowed

women who inherited wealth, property and power. This did not sit well with patriarchal

religions. The Witch Hunts were the final onslaught on women which took all rights from

them --- the right to inheritance, the right to property and the right to their own children!



And --- let me direct you to read something of the "HAMMER OF WITCHES" . . . if you are

not already familiar with it ---


Of course, the Witch Hunts did not only take place in America ---


OK -- that's about all I can do for you ---

[struggle4progress]

125. I never replied to #51: I replied to #35

[Critters2]

164. Besides The Witches' Hammer, do you have any links?

That would add to your credibility.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

43. Sam Harris makes the most cogent and persuasive argument

against the Abrahamic religions I've ever encountered in his masterful book, "The End of Faith." Reading it convinced me to get off the fence of agnosticism and come out as an atheist. Spiritual practice such as Zen Buddhism is quite another matter, as Harris recognizes. There is no godhead in Buddhism, only the example of the Buddha, who never claimed to be anything more than enlightened.

On the face of the words in their so called holy books, the Abrahamic religions are flat-out insane. I am willing to take on the fundamentalpatients on their own grounds - OK, it's literal. So why aren't you stoning your disobedient children to death? Why the hell do you eat lobster and hate gay people. Shellfish and homosexuality are equally forbidden by the schizoid rantings of illeterate desert tribes you call holy. So is shaving. Xtianity is such a hodgepodge of contradictions, madness and the completely inexplicable that it deserves to rot in the dump of history. The only useful thing that can be taken from the entire bible is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and that same principle can be found in plenty of belief systems that lack big, scary, angry and vengeful "gods."

Fundamentalist Islam I will leave to the tender analytics of Harris. It is the only thing that makes fundamentalist Christianity look even marginally sane.

[SmileyRose]

47. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion

if religion were wiped out tomorrow, the powers that be would figure out a new reason to kill and maim other humans. Never underestimate the desire of humans to kill each other - any excuse will do.

[defendandprotect]

52. That may be true --- but THIS reason would be gone ---

The world is not naturally violent --- it's simply what you've been told about it --

Men are taught to be violent ---

Patriarchy produces violence ---

[EFerrari]

53. It's not religion but institutional discrimination and abuse.

Religion is the fig leaf but not the engine.

Gays, Jews, women, the poor and other minorities were also victimized in the Soviet Union where religion was discouraged and even persecuted, right?

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. Exactly, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Enver Hoxa's Albania and Pol Pot's Cambodia all did eve...

possible to suppress religious belief. These were the most un-religious and atheistic societies in the history of the world.

In fact I cannot think of a single thoroughly atheist society in the history of the world that has not been nightmarishly totalitarian.

And I wonder about the depth of unbelief by those who cannot stop from turning absolutely rabid and frothing at the mouth at the very mention of religious or spiritual belief. I'm reminded of the character in Flannery O'Conner's novel, Wise Blood who said, "there is nothing worse than a man who claims not to believe when he really does".

[defendandprotect]

93. You're wrong . . .

Bishop Destombes could you tell us briefly how the Catholic Church in Cambodia began and developed?

Recently we celebrated the 450th anniversary of the evangelisation of Cambodia. Today the local Catholic Church is a small community but with a long history. The history of Catholic missions began in 1554 with a visit by the Jesuit priest Fernandez Mendez Pinto. The first communities were founded in the 17th century by Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans. In the mid 1700 the Catechism was translated into Khmer by the priests of the Paris Foreign Missions Society MEP, and in 1850 the Apostolic Prefecture of Cambodia was created. The first Cambodian born priest was ordained 1957, but in 1975, with the coming to power of the Red Khmers, all foreign missionaries were expelled and the activity of the local Church came to a standstill. Only in 1990 were Christians granted freedom of belief and worship.

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7791

Also see my msg below re Russia which had a long history of Catholicism from 9th C to
Tsarina Alexandria --

I haven't checked the other nation --- and of course Cambodia and BUDHAISM --
but I'm sure you'll find RELIGION deeply embedded in their past.

[EFerrari]

99. Belief systems are DEEPLY imbedded in the pasts of all human cultures. n/t

[B3Nut]

159. They had the same fundamental problem as fundamentalist religion has, however

and that is blind forced adherence to dogma. You could not dispute or debate Lysenko or the Five Year Plans, even though they were demonstrably wrong. Stalin merely replaced fealty to a deity with fealty to state, but in their own twisted sense these regimes were highly religious, only the object of mandatory worship was changed from a deity to the state or leader. Freethought was as verboten under these ostensibly-atheistic regimes as it ever was under Christian theocracies.

Beware of dogma...it really bites!

[Lost-in-FL]

167. Under those Atheistic societies the STATE is their DOGMA...

Their religion is the STATE and religious dogmas cannot compete with the STATE. In the end it is not about beliefs but the control of society.

I don't believe Sweden is or was a Totalitarian society and close to 85% of their country population is atheist.

[malaise]

73. I disagree

people have faith - they choose to believe what they want but institutionalized religion has facilitated an awful lot of evil.

[EFerrari]

81. Sure. I was mostly thinking that those groups are apprpriated

or manipulated by evil, not organized around it. That probably makes little difference to people who got dead.

We could also say that organized religion has promoted civil society, and give the example of the 10 commandments.

[defendandprotect]

94. True ... the spirituality based on NATURE was without violence . . .

patriarchy has brought and taught this violence ---

[EFerrari]

97. Well, not really. There's plenty of violence in nature

and violence is not a product of patriarchy although militarism probably is.

[defendandprotect]

103. No -- violence among men was taught by patriarchy ---

There is no violence, no wars in the ancient world ---

It is with the coming of patriarchy that violence is introduced ---

As for nature and animal life, much that happens there is also a by-product of patriarchal

exploitation of nature and natural resources.

Again, the early ages were free of violence ---

With patriarchy comes violence ---

And, of course, with organized patriarchal religions and their violent god.

[EFerrari]

104. You would benefit from studying the remains of violent deaths

that are part of the anthropological record. Unless you are talking about Avalon or some other "ancient world."

[defendandprotect]

111. I'm talking about the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age . ..

it is only in the later Bronze Age that that violence is introduced by violent males.

[EFerrari]

114. Acording to whom?

And violent behavior is found more or less equally in both sexes of the greater apes, both of whom preceded the latter Bronze Age.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

115. Are you suggesting that the Golden Age was violent . . ???

Let's stick with human behavior ---

which is probably the most advisable since most harm done to nature is caused by humans ---

[EFerrari]

117. Are you serious?! The "Golden Age" is a myth promulgated by Hesiod.

And, do you not believe in evolution?

Talk about selective perception. Now, that's a whopper.

[defendandprotect]

118. The Golden Age is a myth . . . ?

So is much of male history --- !!!

Long before Darwin, people of other ages understood Evolution ---

[EFerrari]

120. You can't rectify misogyny with myth, reactivity or mis attribution.

If anything, in order to counter misogyny, your facts have to be bigger, better and more transparent.

[defendandprotect]

122. Want to work on that comment a bit more and reshoot it to me . . . ?

[EFerrari]

130. I think I'll just let it be. We are on the same side, defendandprotect.

[Odin2005]

155. What a ridiculous post.

In Neolithic Europe there is archaeological evidence of entire villages being slaughtered by warriors from other villages. "Free from violence" my ass.

[defendandprotect]

87. Wrong -- Russia had a history of Catholicism back to at least 9th C --

and if I recall correctly Alexandria of Nicholas and Alexandria was Catholic
and making quite a to-do about it --

On a fast check -- here's a quick link -- I'm sure you'll find much more --

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13253a.htm


Meanwhile, organized patriarchal religion is the "fig leaf" that patriarchy hides behind.

It has been patriarchal religion which has spread hatred for women, homosexuals, Jews -
preached in its books, preached from its pulpits.

Russian Catholicism simply went underground ---

[EFerrari]

95. I wasn't talking about Mother Russia but about the Soviet.

And they went underground because they were persecuted, right?

And the Catholic Church did not invent patriarchy. In fact, the Catholic Church gave thousands of women a choice to partially opt out of traditional marriage and live with marginally more independence in communities of other women. Those lives could include education, travel and more autonomy than most married women had.

Give the devil its due. :)

[defendandprotect]

107. What I'm saying to you is that there was a HISTORY of patriarchal religion . . .

in fact, Catholicism . . . *

which lead to hatred for women, homosexuals, Jews --- ALL OVER THE WORLD.

If you look back that was the original point. Who created the underlying hatred?


Catholic teachings underpinned the German/NAZI ability to so easily oppress Jews to death
finally in Germany -- because the BASIS for this hatred for Jews was so well laid by
Catholicism's oppression of Jews for more than 1,100 years --- with VILE and evil
propaganda spewed from their presses and pulpits in teaching this hatred for Jews.

That was one of the reasons that the NAZIs first built their concentration camps for Jews
in Poland --- because it was such an anti-Semitic Catholic country based on its Catholicism.
Today, Poland is still anti-Semitic.

And, I agree, whenever a religion is attacked it goes underground.
Christianity attacked those they thought were "heretics" . . . "pagans" ---
they were simply people who held other ideas. Nothing new there.
They also went underground ---

As they say, underneath every Catholic Church you'll find someone else's church ---
each new religion, new god, seeks to bury the one before it.

And the Catholic Church did not invent patriarchy...

No -- the Catholic Church didn't invent patriarchy -- but it continues it --
As I note below, the Hebrew writings were an effort to cement patriarchy.
If you read various reports of Jesus' work he is seeking to move the Hebrews
back from its war on women -- he's bringing forth women again -- seeking to change their status.
Basically, Jesus teaches non-violence in trying to overthrow a violent, vengeful Hebrew god.
It's also believed that Jesus involved with the Essenes - vegetarians.

Re this....

fact, the Catholic Church gave thousands of women a choice to partially opt out of traditional marriage and live with marginally more independence in communities of other women. Those lives could include education, travel and more autonomy than most married women had.

I really don't get what you're talking about here or what your point is.
HOWEVER, what right has the RCC to give any woman a "choice" of one life or another?
ALL OF THOSE CHOICES should be up to the female.





* Needless to say, the New Testament is dependent upon the Old Testament/Hebrew writings --
which also seek to oppress females - in fact the Bible was written by Jews to cement the
patriarchy.

[EFerrari]

110. Okay, let's back up. Underneath ANYONE'S site of worship, you find another one.

To focus on this one "successful" one is to miss that altogether. That has more to do with any successful institution than it does with religion in any form.

Any organized Christian Church (or any major religion, for that matter) is only ONE of many social institutions that forwards patriarchy. Christianity, like any organized religion or any other social institution, in order to succeed, follows the dominant practice. They don't invent them.


You're putting the horse before the cart just as you do when you assert the absurdity that patriarchy invented social violence -- when it's been shown that female chimps in the wild, lol, are just as violent as the males, that both hunt with weapons and that they both kill the babies of other bands when they want to widen their territory.


And my point about the early Church is that it actually gave women more choices in their everyday life that weren't available to them otherwise on this planet in civil society. Yes, the Church has benefited women and in fact, its continued survival is impossible without the support of women.

Hate the Catholic Church all you like but at least be honest about its history and its effects on the real lives of real women.

/typos

[defendandprotect]

112. No . .. you're trying to deny the VIOLENCE involved in Christianity/RCC burying other religions . .

It wasn't Christianity's "success" which moved it to violence --- it was its failure . . .

Christianity "introduced the cross with the sword" all over the world - !

"Social institutions" form based on where the hiearchal power is ---
The underpinning for patriarchy is organized patriarchal religion --
patriarchy couldn't exist without "god" saying so --- ! :)

Males could not simply declare themselves superior; they needed a "god" to do it.
I'd also direct you to understand that after the attacks on patriarchy in the '60's ...
one of the first things we see thereafter is the GOP FUNDING the start-up of the
"Christian Coalition" . . . that is . . . in order to shore up patriarchy they well
understand that they have to try to re-establish organized patriarchal religions'
authority which suffered under heavy challenge.

A church and its dogma isn't a "social" institution . . . its authoritarian --
it has been historically violent with its armies --- it gave us the moral set back
of the Medieval period -- the Crusades.

As for nature . . . our species is the only one where one half of the species is at war
with the other half. You find that NO WHERE else in nature. And. btw, the male percentage
of the population is smaller than the female percentage.

Again -- do you see any female priests?
Do you see any females holding positions of ritual and authority within the church --- ?
Any female Popes since Joan?
Do you understand that the Vatican DENIES the full personhood of females even still today--??

You are correct, however, that the withdrawal of WOMEN from the convents has greatly impacted
the church and its schools --- negatively!

I don't "hate" any church --- I do hate violence and oppression ---

[EFerrari]

116. I'm not denying anything. I'm pointing out a logical error of attribution

on your part, as for example you again attributing patriarchy to a religion rather than the other way around, which is how it came down. First there was patriarchy, then there were social movements that tried to tap into and re-enforce patriarchy.

And, this "war" that you are postulating can't be found in nature because it is your postulate. I don't find purple dogs in nature either but I don't believe there is a war on purple dogs.

And, yes, I understand the Church very well. It has always been a hierarchy of power. Do you understand that?

And "social" is not the antithesis of "authoritarian".

Good grief.

[defendandprotect]

119. Historically, we have female-centered civilizations . . .

in fact, Bibically, Mary was the one with the superior family history --
which was given to Jesus ---

Everything in patriarchal history is turned upside down ---

as for example you again attributing patriarchy to a religion rather than the other way around, which is how it came down.

So you're trying to say that first there was organized PATRIARCHAL religion and that
produced patriarchy . . . ???? Sit down and rethink that one!

If you're trying to deny a patriarchal war on women, sit down again and rethink that.

[DeSwiss]

56. K&R!!!!!!!

[opihimoimoi]

58. Dan Dennett, philosopher...he has the answers

[mmonk]

63. It certainly isn't benign. The founding fathers knew.

Right now, it has been a powerful weapon against our democracy as it has provided the voting foot soldiers for the extremism we are living under and the continued assault on freedon we are living. Religion is absolutism, not toleration of differences.

[defendandprotect]

96. Right, the public has to understand the Vatican is OPPOSED to "equality for all" ---

the Vatican has had a 2,000 year old war on women -- picking up where the Hebrews left off
in pushing a one-male god and patriarchy ---

The Vatican still does not acknowledge the FULL personhood of a female as it acknowledges
the full personhood of a male.

Our highest privilege in a democracy is our right to freedom of thought, freedom of personal
conscience --- the Vatican still does not accord that right to their members.


. . . AND IT IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE WHICH GIVES US THAT PRIVILEGE---!!!

[ileus]

65. IF only Barack could ban religion instead of pandering to it.

Some hope isn't alive.

[AngryAmish]

67. Perfect example - the totalitatian nightmare that is England

Head of state is the leader of the national religion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. And lets not forget Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway

All cruel, brutal totalitarian societies that have official state supported churches, state supported religious education, and state funded religious social services.

Imagine having to live under one of those nightmarish orders like the Netherlands or Sweden where no one is free, no one would ever, ever dare to speak their mind and everyone lives in absolutely terror of their state/church institution.

[AngryAmish]

83. I don't even live there, but I fear the Swedish Inquisition

I imagine it would be terrifyingly similar to the Swedish Bikini Team.

[defendandprotect]

98. They are EXCEPTIONAL people ---

[Solly Mack]

68. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

70. You know... I'm so freaking tired of this same screed here.

Religious faith is NOT synonymous with ignorance. Those who make such assumptions are usually the ones suffering from ignorance.

I'm perfectly good at thinking for myself, thanks. And part of that thought process - a rather involved one, spanning most of my life - leads me to my faith. A faith which is intellectual as well as emotional.

And as much as you wish not to be troubled by the beliefs of others, in order to protect your own worldview, you have no right to disparage those beliefs, either. What you're saying is just what those on the far right do: think as I do.

[michaz]

74. Agree! n/t

[Clark2008]

79. Bingo.

It never occurs to some that their hatred of all things religious results in the same bigotry they lay at others' doors.

[defendandprotect]

100. Religious faith is not fact . . .

and when religious hierarchy embraces CREATION vs Evolution, are you saying that that's not
ignorance . . . ?

You may think for yourself, however are you denying that the Catholic Church still bars its
members from reproductive freedom and the right to personal conscience --- ???

And -- sorry -- but we do have a right to question and challenge any religious belief which
is brought into the public arena ---

[Evoman]

126. That's an interesting claim.

I have...trouble...believing that any faith is intellectual...from all my observations of religious people, I'd have to say ALL of them have faith for purely emotional reasons or for emotional reasons posing as intellectual reasons. Religion seems to have very little intellectual integrity.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, cause you know I love ya. And my next question is completely based on me wanting to understand: How can faith be intellectual? How is your faith intellectual?

[Sanctified]

127. Do you feel the same way about Philosophy? n/t

[Evoman]

128. lol....yeah, more or less.

It may be interesting, but I find a lot of philosophy hard to swallow. I've actually been beat up a couple of times around here for thinking that most philosophy is vacuous mumbo jumbo written in long, pretty words.

[JerseygirlCT]

132. Those words aren't always so pretty either!

I think that starts coming down to personality types. Some of us are happy to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Some of us have other things to do!

[JerseygirlCT]

131. The basis, at bottom, is of course

a leap. I cannot use scientific methods to "prove" my beliefs. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

But beyond that, the way I look at my beliefs - my belief in God, my belief about what I'm called to do wrt relationships with other people, the way faith intersects with daily life, with politics, with just about anything - those aren't emotional stabs in the dark. They've been pretty carefully considered.

There's an old saw about Anglican traditions being a three-legged stool: tradition, scripture, and reason. Individual thoughtfulness is accorded a co-equal place with religious traditions and with scripture.

Sometimes, in fact, this can be something of a problem for Anglicans. We tend to think about things too much, and maybe act on them too little. Interesting considerations of a knotty theological issue can attract us, while the person across the room needs some food for the next few nights, or maybe just a hug, you know?

Now, please don't get me wrong - I make no claim whatsoever to being a theological expert or intellectual here. I'm just a seat in the pews. But I don't think my approach to faith has been all emotional. I've made some pretty intellectually considered decisions about it all- probably given it all more thought than most of the people I know. If I hadn't, I'd just be another lapsed Catholic, baptising my kids and otherwise not really doing much else.

[PassingFair]

160. Which would spontaneously have occurred if you were...

born in China?

Or India?

Or Dubai?

Were you raised in a "Christian" country?

If so, your upbringing lead you to your
faith.

Your parents.

Your culture.

NOT your thought process.

[Bettie]

72. I agree with this with one tiny change....

ORGANIZED religion is harmful to society and to people.

I know many people who are religious and/or spiritual in their own quiet ways. It is evident in the way they live their lives, being kind to others, doing things to improve the society they live in, and generally trying to live good lives while not harming anyone else.

On the other hand, churches tend to make people into sanctimonious jerks who think that they are the only ones who know the great truths of the universe.

A belief in "god" or a higher power doesn't make you a jerk, but all too often, going to church certainly does, all too often.

Then there's the old saying....the best place to find a hypocrite is in the front row of church on Sunday morning!

[treestar]

75. It does good too, though

Overall it may balance out. There are charitable hospitals, and it was the churches who started them. Many of the religious do actually help the poor and do things that the religion prescribes. One of the five pillars of Islam in charity. It's not always for terrorist groups, in spite of what the right wing and the * administration make it out to be. Religion is a part of nearly every culture and won't go away easily. Over time, one hope is that they all sort of merge and admit they are all basically the same and have the same function, sort of like languages.

[ThatsMyBarack]

77. You've expressed very well....

Everything I was thinking! :thumbsup:

[Leftist Agitator]

78. "Thus Osama Bin Laden can convince 19 people to fly planes into buildings..."

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Dick Cheney perpetrated 9-11.

[baldguy]

80. Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[defendandprotect]

101. Love John Lennon and his wonderful understanding ---

those words always stop me --- I always listen . . .

[JustAnotherGen]

82. great post -rec

I do see all of those things. That's why after 8 years of Catholic Highschool/University and being raised by a Southern Baptish and Methodist . . .

I left the 'orthodox' and became a Unitarian. Because at the end of the day - it's just one God that left a long time ago and doesn't care about what we do day to day. And it sure as hell doesn't want a bunch of human beings putting 'word in it's mouth'. Or doing anything in its' name that wasn't personally sanctioned by it. Or - pretending it told a former coke addict Frat Boy that he should run when we all know it did no such thing.

The three Abrahamic religions are not only to blame - oh no. Let's look at the ancient/old ways too. Let's take at Indian Caste Systems and sacrifices made in South America by ancient cultures.

I'm okay with the argument of the original post - because I agree. But make sure we are taking a jab at ALL paths that claim their own 'truth'.

[defendandprotect]

102. The old spiritual beliefs were based on nature . . . no heaven, no hell ---

"Hell" is an invention of patriarchy ---
and violence was introduced into societies by patriarchy --

[struggle4progress]

106. If 9/11 were really religiously motivated, why didn't the hijackers attack

religious targets?

The WTC was a well-known symbol of US economic power; the Pentagon, a well-known symbol of US military power

[defendandprotect]

109. Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous . . .

though capitalists would like to confuse the public in that regard ---

While I don't, of course, believe that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 --
and he immediately denied it --- I see it as capitalists attacking their own
failures --

Kidna this way . . .

The WTC towers were going to have to be brought down because there were structural
problems and problems with the building as a less desirable rental commodity ---
They were going to have to be brought down in a very expensive fashion ---
scaffolding built and basically dismantled ---

THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO USE DEMOLITION TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS . . . !!!

Also, WTC 7 held an immense amount of legal records -- records of ENRON and other
SEC violators -- for future cases. Among many other important records.
But most of them problems for capitalists.

And that's also true of the Pentagon which can't account for more than $2.4 TRILLION
dollars and much, much more of our money! The records which were being checked and
supposedly to be handed over to the GAO were held in the wing which was
bombed . . . just by coincidence!!!

:eyes:

[heidler1]

108. I believe that the human animal evolved with a need for help dealing with the world.

If each of us felt self sufficient this need would be suppressed and then joining protective groups would be less common.

Some people see this need in others as an opportunity for power by satisfying this need. Frequently these would be leaders fail miserably, but the need still exists so the needy will quickly join up with a new group and its leader with new hope. This goes on and on for ever. Much like searching for heaven here on earth. IMO the Christ myth of the OT exemplifies this. To the Republicans, max greed, Reagan was it and to the Democrats it was FDR, who protected the common people. All Bush sucked in was his push to protect the religious.

The whole thing is like Lucy saying to Charlie Brown, "You don't have a inferiority complex Charlie Brown, you are inferior". So you can't fix it, but the struggle to prevent selecting bad leaders must go on.

[LanternWaste]

133. I think one must ask themselves...

I think one must ask themselves if the negative/violent consequences (as you exemplified above) is a fundamental tenet of the religion or not.

If it's not a tenet of the particular religion in question, I can't perceive the violence and bigotry as a direct consequence of religion-- merely a consequence of different interpretations of it.

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

135. I always hate these threads, my religion doesn't fit into the mold you are talking about

Yet it is religion.

[pegleg]

136. What a load of crap! The problem is not religion. It is people.

People become zealots for many causes besides religion. Countless millions have been killed in the name of atheistic causes and political fanaticism. Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot, to name just a few. Anti-religious bigots are using this excuse to pursue their brand of bigotry. It is people with extreme ideas who kill others and religion is just an excuse that some use to justify their right to kill. Zealots might also someday kill others for the cause of stamping out religion. People are the cause , not religion. It's the people who do such things who need to be dealt with.

[varkam]

137. Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

Countless millions have been killed in the name of atheistic causes and political fanaticism. Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot, to name just a few.

So Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism? No. They made the State, or rather tried to make the State, God.

[pegleg]

138. Nice try

[varkam]

144. Nice refutation.

"Na na na na! I can't hear you!"

[pegleg]

149. The exact term the soviets used for their new state religion was

"scientific atheism". Communism was the vehicle used to spread it.

www.geocities.com/[e-mail]/Z3211C.pdf

Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed by PAUL FROESE

"Under communism, the Russian religious landscape consisted mainly of two competitors—a severely repressed Russian Orthodox Church and a heavily promoted atheist alternative to religion called “scientific atheism.”Under these circumstances, one might expect the rapid spread of religious disbelief, but the intensity of the atheist campaign originated from official mandate and not popular appeal. In turn, scientific atheism never inspired the Russian population and grew increasingly uninspired as Soviet officials created a monopoly “church” of scientific atheism in hopes of replacing persistent religious beliefs and practices. This article is dedicated to explaining whyCommunists could not successfully convert the masses to atheism."

[charlie]

150. You've got that backwards

"Scientific atheism" was the vehicle for Communism, not the other way around. Communism was paramount, all else was valued only as far as it furthered ideology. Lysenkoism and Mao's Great Leap Forward are just two examples of science itself being subverted, with deleterious effects that were plainly obvious at the time, to serve Communist political agendas.

[beam me up scottie]

153. So they actually created a new religion and then killed in the name of that one.

Game, set, match, varkam.

[cosmik debris]

140. It's the same thing every time he posts

Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin , Pol Pot.

That's all he's got and he'll never give it up.

[pegleg]

142. Reality sucks doesn't it ?

[cosmik debris]

143. Only the reality where you are. n/t

[Jim__]

139. I agree. The problem is people.

People are both social and violent by nature. We live in groups and we fight for survival. We have always fought against other groups of people that were competing for scarce resources. That is deeply embedded in who we are.

Religion is one type of group that we can form, so, religion is one reason we will find to fight against other groups. But, then, geography, political organization, family, skin color, etc. are all other ways that we can form groups. And each of these groupings has been a cause for violence across our history.

Eliminating religion will not change our propensity for violence.

[Evoman]

141. Yeah, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to point out the emperor has no clothes

when religion isn't around.

We may still be violent, and there may still be war, but one by one we take away the things can be used to justify that violence. Perhaps sooner or later, we can get to the point that people who kill others are forced to admit that it's because they are greedy or violent douches. And maybe instead of those assholes having a group of millions backing them up, they are reduced to just hundreds.

-We need to get rid of religion. We need more interracial couples. We need to break down all that bullshit that divides us. If we don't, we might as well admit we're fucked and kill ourselves with some nukes right now.

edit: By the way, I'm totally doing what I can....I've killed any hope of religious seeding within myself, and am in an interracial relationship. Yay for me.

[varkam]

146. I don't think that it is an either / or choice.

I also don't think that anyone believes getting rid of religious will change our propensity for . With or without religion, I think we're still going to have people one another.

However, that does not mean that religion - in and of itself - is not an aggravating factor in some of the that we see. For example, religion provides (among other things) a very convenient means for people to facilitate in-group solidarity and out-group hostility.

[pegleg]

147. People's propensity for violence and intolerance is what needs to be addressed

and not their grasp of religion. These are 2 separate issues. And even that is a gross oversimplification. But religion itself can go a long ways toward achieving that goal, if other factors are considered such as poverty and human rights.
The Amish and the Quakers aren't noted for attacking anyone, and certainly there are many more that reject the negative things in human nature.


"A philosophy whose principle is so incommensurate with our most intimate feelings as to deny
them all relevancy in universal affairs, as to annihilate their motives at one blow, will be even
more unpopular than pessimism—that is why materialism will always fail of universal adoption."
—William James

[knitter4democracy]

151. I've seen zealous knitters, but we haven't killed anyone.

I'm just sayin' . . . Being zealous doesn't necessarily lead to violence. We need to look at what drives people to take that zealotry to a violent level.

[ZombieHorde]

145. You should replace the word religion with the word monotheism.

[and-justice-for-all]

148. Indeed it is not harmless....

it breeds ignorance about the world.

[Odin2005]

154. "If you can be made to believe absurdities...

...you can be made to commit atrocities." --Voltaire


" I believe because it is absurd" --Early Christian Fathers


You can get people to believe the most ridiculous and absurd things via religion, THAT is why religion is so dangerous.

[Disturbed]

156. Knives can be used for good or ill, so it is with religions.

Religions are here to stay. They may vary & change but they will remain. Societies do change. One example: Corporal punishment was at one time accepted by most in schools in America. It no longer is acceptable by the majority. There are other examples of change. Think about some more.

[cynatnite]

158. Well said n/t

[Riktor]

161. Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument:

There is no control.

There is no default, religion-less society to compare against all the others.

The behaviors you are describing above may have more to do with the political aspirations of the manipulative politician than the concept of "religion" itself. Let us not forget religion is run by the powerful, who have a vested interest in keeping people divided and confrontational. In this sense, "religion" is just a mechanism to achieve a segregated world, rather than the root cause. Blaming religion for this sort of inhumanity is akin to arresting a firearm for murder.

[Critters2]

165. This is what Girard says. People are driven to violence, persecution, etc

by shared desires,rivalries, competitions. These will exist as certainly in a secular world as in a religious one. The issue is that epople in power will use violence to maintain power. His fear is that a secular world will not have the shared ethical basis to keep violence in check to some degree. His book _Evolution and Conversion_ talks about this.

And when I read the violent language atheists and others here use in talking about what they'd like to see happen to religious people, I have no doubt that Girard is right.

[beam me up scottie]

166. So skinner allows atheists to use this forum to advocate violence against religious people?

I'm sure admin would like to know about these posts, perhaps you could point them out.

[Silent3]

162. How about we phrase it this way...

"Ideologies which encourage irrationality, especially coupled with devotion, are not harmless."

Religion is a subset of such ideologies, along with Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism, racism, strident nationalism, etc. The danger is not religion per se, but encouraging people to set reason and reasonable demands for evidence aside. I consider that harmful in and of itself at an intellectual level, but I don't think that's the kind of harm we're discussing here.

You don't have to value intellectual honesty for its own sake, however, to dislike ideologies which promote violence, trick people out of their money, keep believers/followers and their children away from necessary medical treatment, etc. Not all religions or other irrational ideologies necessarily bring about such harm, but the kind of thinking that sustains those ideologies opens the door in a way that people more vulnerable.