The "religion feeds most hatred and bigotry" false cause fallacy.

From another thread:

"Religion feeds most hared and bigotry in this world. It always has, it always will."


Humans are full of hatred and bigotry, period. It manifest itself through religion simply because it is a very common human experience for many, so it is one very visible place where we can see the darker side of human potential. But humans but certainly doesn't need religion to demonstrate that. Humans demonstrate the darker side of their potential throughout every structure and every system, including non-religious ones. Religion is not the cause problem. It is one place where the symptoms of the problem can be manifest however. If it was the core problem then I think EVERY person who held spiritual beliefs would embrace hatred and bigotry. And we know that's so incredibly not true.

No, the core problem is the human heart - always has been and always will be. If there were no religion, guess what, there would still be hatred and bigotry. And lot of aggressively non-religious people - people who are not only personally irreligious but who also have to bad mouth and humiliate and berate and harass all religion everywhere and all people who are religious usually use religion as a false "scapegoat" for the real problems of life. Like I said "religion" is not the cause of problems. But people doing bad things in the name of religion is one symptom of the problem.

It's just as easy to argue that American capitalism feeds most of the hatred and prejudice in this world - hatred against everything that isn't "American" and prejudice in the form of class warfare. If that argument sounds strange to you, it is no more strange than this constant berating of all religion as though somehow it is the cause of the problem. It is not the cause of hatred and bigotry - but hatred and bigotry is often expressed through religion, simply because it is such a common experience. Hatred and prejudice are also frequently expressed through capitalism, through communism, and yes even through non-religious secularism or atheism.

I believe the "religion feed most of the hatred and bigotry in this world" line is a line used by people full of hatred and prejudice - toward religious people. They either deliberately or accidentally falsely assume that religion is the root cause of these things, rather than one very common experience (to many) through which the darker side of human nature often shines through. If there were no religion, people would find other things to fight about.

Now, you may not agree with that particular take but here's the thing: it is every bit as plausible as your take. I have just as much circumstantial evidence to support my take as you do yours. In fact I have even stronger support to be honest, because your claim faces the challenge that if religion feeds hatred and bigotry, how then is it that so many people do not give into those things, but instead lead beautiful and inspiring lives. Some of the most wonderful and important people of history have been so precisely because of their religious faith as the lens through which they saw the world - Dr. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hahn, and so on.

In the end it comes down to a choice: do you choose to explain the data by blaming religion or by acknowledging that the human heart carries with it the potential (and sometimes I almost fear the disposition) toward hatred and bigotry, and religion is a common experience to many people, therefore also unfortunately a place where common human potentials are often manifest.

Religion is like anything else - it can be abused. The real problem is us, not religion, or capitalism, or any other system, organization or group. Religion has the potential for many, many people to be a way to overcome and rise above these human capacities, inspiring many to love and peace. I also think Western Civilization and especially people in the United States frequently associate all religion with American Fundamentalist Christianity which is unfortunate and unfair. Either way, "religion" is a common (though not universal) expression of human experience and can be harness for great and beautiful good or tragic evil, just like anything else out there.

:yourock:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your continued and unexplained rudeness towards me was at first puzzling, then unsurprising, then expected. And for your information, I did read the entire post and understand it one minute. I speed-read. It's quite simple.

By the way, I don't think you're in a position to challenge one's reading comprehension, considering that the original post did not advocate religious fundamentalism.

I don't and have never noticed any difference at all between the way I live my life and the way a religious person lives theirs.

Honest

If someone would like to point out to me some really, really astounding difference I am willing to take it into consideration, but I have been observing for a long time, and see none. In fact, at times, I have even seen my life as being lived a little bit more humanely than one who brags about their religion as being their life compass or some other such metaphor. :shrug:

If you see no difference, and feel you behave more "humanely" than other people, that's great.

But the beauty of life is that we're all different and have different experience. I am a person who went from Christian tradition, to a rejection of all of that and agnosticism to a renewed personal experience of religious faith - its not about comparing my "quality" of life or character to someone else, its about comparing my life without my faith to my life with. For me, it works.

My faith is part of who I am, and I like me, and I'm proud of who I continue to become. :D It's really not more complicated than that. My life is better for my embrace of my spiritual experience, and those who know my would agree that something is different (and better) in my life today than in my life five years ago. I'm happy most of the time, when I'm not reading the news, I'm peaceful and full of joy inside - and I love life and love people. And a lot of how I understand the world, and people, and how to be happy and healthy in this life comes via religious imagery and language. Nothing wrong with that.

But it doesn't have to be your experience to be a legitimate one for me. I think Trying to compare yourself to other "religious" people as a way for legitimizing or illegitimating the religious experience of all people is not the way to go.

Some people say religion is a crutch, and feel superior when the look down their noses as those "weak" people who need the illusion of religion. That's fine. It might be a crutch. And if so, guess what, I have the honesty, and integrity and humility to acknowledge that I think I need that crutch, if that's what it is. You can call me weak if you want, but I'm unbelievably happy in life ... are you?

not all of us need crutches.

..what has made my life extremely happy be the source of constant ridicule, and disdain.

If you want to believe it is a crutch, that's fine with me. Maybe it is, but it works for me. If you're as happy as I am in life, then keep doing what you're doing! :D But if you're not that happy, then hold off on the criticism of things that work for other people, and find what works for you, is what I'm saying. I'm not assuming she is unhappy, I'm saying I am extremely happy myself, so why must everyone else always treat the subject of religion with absolute rabid agression.

"crutches"

I see no difference. Sometimes I am happy and sometimes I am not happy. Is that not the same as anyone else who has religion?

If you are happy and attribute that to religion then I cannot take that from you and do not want to. But I fail to see there is a difference

really. What is the difference? Can you answer that?

I am as happy and as sad as you-I experience the same as you.

I fail to see any difference--

Honest.

And it doesn't bother me that you see no difference; I'm not asking you to. At least I never meant it to come off that way if it did.

I think the point I was getting at is that I have seen a difference in my own life, and that's what I think matters.

?

It just provides an organized framework for them and offers cultural and internal psychological support for them. One might as well argue that without the Nazi party German people would still have committed murders. Of course they would. So what?

Every benign effect of religion people cite always happens to occur after the Enlightenment. (Western culture has been at best agnostic for half a millennium, even though many individuals within the culture have profound and sincere beliefs)

The role of religion in banishing slavery has been well documented. What is less often noted is that Christianity had 1500 years to do something about slavery and did nothing while secularism accomplished abolition in a century or two. (The individual abolitionists were largely religious, but the broader culture was increasingly non-theist.) Every civilized advance that followed tracked the decline of religion. Increases in religion lead to increases in hatred and misery... really, name a culture that has undergone a religious revival that didn't make everyone's life worse.

If you want to defend your individual religiosity, go for it. Much good in the world is done by religious people.

But religion as a cultural phenomenon is poison and always has been.

What you point to seems to me to be one manifestation of religion gone in one kind of direction. I can't point to one example where Capitalism hasn't lead to both positives and also intense negatives in basically all its manifestations. I don't think the root cause of the world's ills is either capitalism or religion. I believe the root cause of the world's ills is the elevation of ANY structure religious or not, to the institutional level where power and dominance become the fundamental driving principle.

The real problem is the corrupting influence of power lust and the natural inclination of every good idea to become institutionalized and thereby corrupted.

The problem is not the religious institution. The problem is inherent with institutions itself, wherein power acquisition and maintenance becomes the ultimate driving force and all principles that were originally the purpose of the good idea become lost along the way. This criticism is legitimized for every political structure, every religious institution on the whole, every manifestation of the move from personalized, community oriented, contextualized, relational living to "structural society." Institutionalized religion is one example symptom of the root problem. The moder American institution and its systematized oppression and exploitation is another symptom of the root problem. Don't mistake the symptom for the cause.

If you want to monkey with the plain contemporary meaning of 'religion' that's fine, but it's sort of a moving target. Nobody reading your post is likely to think of 'religion' as the spiritual framework of 'personalized, community oriented, contextualized, relational living'

They will think of religion as what 'religion' means. An institutional faith.

It's a little like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Ironically, the incredible power of religion to move people is too often used to move them to accept or commit immoral acts.

Just for starters... right now we live in a VERY materialistic society where slavery has moved into a much more subtle form.

And religion as a cultural phenomenon is either poison or remedy DEPENDING ON THE PERSON/PERSONSS.

Frankly, I think Materialists are currently doing much more harm to Life on Earth than any other group that has existed. And this group includes many Scientists (many of them American) who refuse to step outside of their own closed, outdated viewpoint.

The problems seem to arise most it seems with the co-mingling of religion and politics. With the rise in fundigelicalism in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish religions we see a legitimization of the hatred and violence in Gods name. Fundigelicalism has co-opted God for purely evil political purposes and it must be stamped out like the Cancer it has become.

Hence the strict importance of the separation of church and state. It is why I'm so saddened that all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, are now supporting religious-based charity through our tax dollars. Essentially, through this administrations ill-conceived executive order, some of my tax dollars are going directly to religious organizations that I do not support, and specifically do not want my tax-dollars flowing toward.

Just today, I placed out some canned food for the USPS "Stamp out Hunger" program. I believe that individuals should be the ones to decide where their charity, or lack-of-charity goes.

The importance of the whole first amendment, at least in my view, is the right of individuals to not believe or believe in whatever "their heart" chooses. It is not supposed to be up to the government, or an executive branch appointee, to decide which religious charities deserve taxpayers dollars. That should be up to individuals.

Individuals' divergent beliefs need to be protected in that regard. Atheism and all religious belief systems are threatened by a government that offers tax dollars for belief compliance.

religions are now ACTIVELY trying to get that piece of garbage BUSH re-installed into the White House. The gloves are OFF.

you're quoting. And yes, I recognize who said the phrase in your subject line. It could be the same as calling one out, imo.

and it seems you're the only one who said it quite like that.

What I said to the second respond it was, I don't think you can judge it in that way, once I got my edit right to make sure I said what I meant to say.

Is it "judging" when we examine a claim and argue that it is made on faulty grounds? Is that the same kind of "judging" as saying "you're an evil person?" I don't think so.

...is the capacity to believe what you know to be false.

It opens many doors that I am glad to avoid.

--IMM

Verified by personal experimentation and experience repeatedly over time.


As a Kabbalist who has been studying for years in a particular system... I must point out that at the very beginning of my journey I was admonished NOT to take anything on blind faith alone... to wait until various principles and theories have been verified.

...that reasoned faith is an oxymoron. If you really have some evidence for something, you don't need faith.

Perhaps you could provide an example of reasoned faith(?) I am hard pressed to think of something that doesn't also fit what I would call rationalization. Reason, in the definition I use, means a mental process to arrive at some conclusion. That does not ascertain that the conclusion has validity.

If by reason you mean what I would call logic, then you would start from a statement which might be verified. Then, process, properly applied, would lead to other statements that have the same truthfulness.

Anyway, could you be more specific? Thanks.

--IMM

always an answer for everything.

I completely disagree. Religion isn't just abused - it has been culturally designed to SEPARATE PEOPLE in the most fundamental manner. I am sick of people arguing over who has the better imaginary friend and using their silly beliefs to behave in appalling ways. From the outside looking in, it's all crap.

And I am tired of being told I have to RESPECT beliefs I sometimes consider hateful and very destructive.

If it works for someone else - who cares? You know as well as I do that you can't even possibly begin to claim that every person who has laid claim to a religious faith has been an evil person. In fact, its obviously through history that the religious faith of many people have directly inspired them to great heights; I again think of Dr. King as my favorite example. He didn't become who he was in spite of his faith, but rather directly because of it and the values and beliefs it inspired in him.

It may be "all crap" but I'm very grateful that Dr. King believed what he did, and used those beliefs as the back bone of a credible and timely message of hope and peace for this country. Maybe he was "weak" for needing religion as a "crutch" to help him articulate that message. But if so, I'd rather have weak people on crutches acting like him than kicking the crutches out from under them in an attitude of disdain and smug superiority. Maybe the non-religious are better, smarter, wiser, more evolved, more sophisticated and just all around better people than all religious folk. Maybe that's true, but if it is, I wish more of them would start acting like it - they could start by having a healthy does of compassion and tolerance for their "weaker" brothers and sisters who need religion in their lives.

My faith has made my life happier and better. And I'm not asking you to share it. So explain to me why I have to listen to you and others like you constantly say humiliating, hurtful, berating things against something has been so meaningful for me and that I'm not trying to force on you in the first place? Why?

YOU ARE

I'm not saying, "you are not as happy as I am" or "you cannot possibly be as happy as I am" in the other thread.

I'm saying I'm more happy because of my religious faith than I was with out it, and I am very happy indeed? When I asked, "are you," the point was that the answer is probably YES, not no - and if the answer is YES that's great! But I don't feel the need to attack her and her "secularism" and talk about how its all "crap" and I'm sick of people who do this and than, etc. etc. If the answer is yes, then I'm fine with that - WHY does it matter whether other people have found peace and happiness through other means? Why can't the militantly anti-religious crowd just be fine with it and stop beating up on peoples beliefs and EVERY opportunity?

who don't NEED RELIGION to DO THE RIGHT THING????

What I don't respect are a particular group of people who don't need religion and the make it their personal mission in life to harass, berate, humiliate and deride the religion experience of everyone else.

Please point to where I said that I don't respect the beliefs of people who don't need religion? In fact I believe I said that very thing - several times. I'm very interested in living and letting live. My best friend in the whole world, a man I love with my whole heart, is an atheist. I'm fine with it. It's my faith, it works for me, I'm not asking it to work for him.

But he also respects me, and respects how my religious beliefs color my life. He's told me before he can see clearly how my religious faith positively affects my life, and I've told him before how I never want him to change from the amazing man I think that he is - I'm not asking him to become religious.

But he doesn't go around bashing religion, saying hateful, hurtful, humiliating things, talking down to me because of my faith or anything of the sort. You do. And others here do as well. And that's unfortunate.

religion makes people go to WAR. It makes homosexual teens KILL THEMSELVES. You do NOT have a lock on what is HURTFUL and HUMILIATING. YOU ran a thread separate from my original post BASHING WHAT I BELIEVE. My opinions are JUST AS VALID AS YOURS but you won't seem ME running start a thread trashing YOU.

..my opinion is that spiritual faith works for me, and that you are just as valid, good, and right to not embrace spiritual faith as what works for you.

..your opinion is not just an opinion for yourself, but a pronouncement on everyone else - that not only does religion not work for you, but it is something to be demeaned, berated and mocked and so is everyone feels differently about it than you do.

That's the difference. If you were simply saying "I am not religious because I don't believe in religion or in God." that would be fine. But instead you come across as saying "I am not religious and you shouldn't be either, in fact people who are religious are actually stupid, ignorant, evil, hateful, bigoted, etc. etc." You don't respect me or other religious people in your words, you talk down to people of faith - mock faith, ridicule it, deride it. That's the difference. I actually respect your non-belief, and I in fact am able to even keep an open mind to the possibility that you may even understand the world more clearly and better than I do, so I definitely respect that. But its hard to respect your approach of taking a two by four to the head of religion non stop - something that is a deep and meaningful part of other people's lives.

Respect is not a one-way street. And I tell you right now I deeply respect your non-belief, as I respect the non-belief of many people. As I said before, my dearest friend is an atheist and there's almost no one I respect more on this earth. Can you respect my belief? That's a simple question? Can you show me respect by not talking down to me, not berating my faith or the things that are meaningful to me? That's the difference, you've never shown that you can do that. I'm not sure why you hate religion so much that you can't even show a basic level of tolerance and respect for people who do find it meaningful, even when those people are showing respect for you and not trying to change you. But I'm sorry.

and for you to suggest that it has been culturally designed to SEPARATE PEOPLE shows your own lack of knowledge/faulty observation.

Is radio designed to spew hatred and rightwing vitriol over the airwaves just because its dominated by the like of Rush & Hannity etc?

Please learn to seperate the transparent water from the colored glass which holds it.

and that is EXACTLY what relgions do.

Just because SOME people use it to hold themselves SEPERATE from others doesn't mean they are acting in the TRUE spirit of Religion.

The purpose of being a Catholic or Jew isn't to BE Catholic or Jewish as opposed to what other people may be.

The purpose of practising Catholicism or Judaism is to move closer to Unity or God.

Do you understand Harmonics... where various notes sound together to create Harmony?

Not all of them take a charitable view of outsiders. Plenty have codified nasty ways infidels should be dealt with.

"(There is a) universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power."

having relgion forced on us - including our government, is a HUGE problem.

And if people were just talking about having religion forced on us, and into our government, I would be RIGHT THERE WITH YOU all the way! But that's not what is often being talked about. What is often being expressed is individuals complete disdain and hatred for all things religious and disrespect for anyone who is religious.

I JUST DON'T WANT RELIGION IN MY FACE AND IN MY GOVERNMENT but these days THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. I don't care what people want to believe but when they use it for hate and bigotry and war and denying people the right to be married and, now, actively trying to get Bush re-installed into the White House, IT BECOMES MY PROBLEM; it becomes a HUGE problem.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, one of my frequented cites. I'm on the local ACLU watch list for court cases and local issues having to do with maintaining church and state separation. I've written about it, from the perspective of a religious person, in strong support. I've spoken out on the dangers and evils of theocracy and fundamentalism in the name of "government."

I agree with you 100% on the nature of this HUGE problem.

And if we can agree on that... maybe there is more we can find to agree on ? :D

First of all, read what Jefferson wrote. I think you'll find it relates PRECISELY to what you wrote.

Second, "religious intolerance" and having religion "forced on us" are just two sides of the same coin.

I was looking at it one-sided - whenever you question religion they start screaming RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE! You are correct - it can be reversed too.

Religion may not be the cause for numerous horrors, but it's the facilitator. Whether Hitler believed isn't the issue; that he used belief to justify his actions is.

Far too many people have no real ethical code, they merely sign on to some religion and think they're "good". Doing this leaves them free to do as they please, as long as they keep clean with the Witchy Man. Worse than anything, religion leaves its believers unable to deal with new and unexpected circumstances that fall outside the hard laws of the faith.

Religions that have a component of superiority (most of them) have a built in mechanism for subjugating non-believers. Is it the religion itself that's the problem? Yes. The belief that religion is good, and those subscribing the the faith are somehow better is the root of cruelty. Cruelty stems from feeling superior to others.

Like Sancho Panza says: whether the rock hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the rock, it's going to be very hard for the pitcher.

If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, one is forced to come up with moral codes, ethical priorities and a questioning worldview. Although hardcore Atheism is a belief and an unproven faith itself, many non-believers are not beset with this extreme attitude. We realize that our actions impact everyone, and we need to be a part of the whole, with no "out" for our activities.

Religion is much more dangerous than it is helpful, and its adherents need to take responsibility for their actions. After all, ALL of the current crap was caused by various groups who were cocksure that they completely understand how the supernatural universe works, and those of faith need to take responsibility for the mayhem.

you truly get it.

and there are PLENTY of posts right here on DU to demonstrate their feeling of superiority and close mindedness.

So that shoots YOUR theory right to bits...

Without Scientists there would be no Depleted Uranium, no filth polluting our environment etc. ad naseum.

Its the feelings of deity sanctioned superiority and the lack of morals. I *think* the poster was trying to say that religion and morality, though usually related, are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.

PS. Thanks for bashing scientists.:eyes: I won't go at you for that one but you should look at how you are communicating before you start that stuff.

But we've had that conversation at DU before.

...than all other institutionalized structures. The problem is institutionalization of personal conviction, and the inherent need of human beings to try and force people to conform to systems and persecute people who don't. It's a true danger in religious systems, its a true danger in political and economic systems, its a true danger in social structures -- its heart lies at the core of the human experience, religion is but one avenue through which this dark struggle can be manifest, but it is not the only one, and it is not legitimate to decree that therefore we would be better off in doing away with all religion instead of looking at the heart of human nature and seeking to understand how the core problems get to the place where the manifest themselves through this and all other structures in the first place.

I wonder if some of this is due to humans early (pre-civilization) experiences in the wild. Think of the same time periods that brought us the flight or fight response.

For instance, a group of people cooperating in a hunt, or when threatened by a predator who wandered into the humans cave. Namely, the desire to control was bred into us as a result of the necessity to survive in a world where some acts of cooperation offered survival, while failure to cooperate offered death. The desire to control could be a derivative of this, sort of a type of leadership that was bred into us by those who practiced leader/follower behavior and survived over those who didn't and died.

..control.

It seems that there are a lot of great things out there, that once too many people get on board with them, become corrupted. Why is that? Why is there this seeming drive toward institutionalization in almost everything? It's like humans naturally move toward and not away from these structures. And why is it that these institutions almost universally become corrupt in some way - they become about maintaining and expanding power and dominance, instead of whatever their original intent was. It's often true of religion, its often true in most political institutions - it seems to be true across the board...

I find that interesting, and I'd like to understand it better.

Agreed-upon presumptions of how the world works, ESPECIALLY when they include supernatural elements like "immortality", "destiny" and the like are MUCH WORSE to the common good. A political affiliation is much easier to argue a person away from than a religious one.

Politics and social structures have a much harder time getting people to do the really severe things like killing people, and without the "out" that you're "not really killing them", religions like this have a built-in destructive mechanism. To a mean-spirited person who just happens to have signed on (or been signed on by his/her family) to Christianity, there's a real and dangerous "out" to killing: if the person was right with the lord, then you just helped them on their way; if they weren't, then you were just an instrument of the great power. This is crap, and this is prevalent. It also doesn't make a lick of sense, because people do change, and if you snuff 'em before they become righteous, you've cheated them of their due, played god and been a dick.

People will do things in the name of religion that they'd never think of doing for any other reason. This is why it's so dangerous. People who believe their opinions are backed up by the supernatural allfrighty consider them superior and not subject to proof; these opinions are "greater" than others' beliefs, and this is aristocracy. That's why religion's kept out of politics.

You can't compare what people will do for their god to what they'll do for their leader; all you need to do is find a skunk who believes in Hitler and god, and if he's willing to do some nasty things for the former, he'll do worse for the latter. The religious sphere is elevated from the earthly one: no need of proof, no need to compromise, no need to tolerate, and entitled to otherwise forbidden activities; religion is inherently anti-democratic because it believes in an aristocracy, and this is why it needs to be kept at bay.

Religion is allowed to be the spark from which a politician's work and legislation stems, but NOT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. That's the difference.

Although people do nasty things for party, country, family and other institutions, they do MUCH worse things for god, because he/she/it is playing in an entirely different league. When you're putting the electrodes on the testicles, you know there may be advancement in it for you if you're thinking of your commander, but you think you're an instrument of goodness when you do it for your god. There is literally no comparison between secular and religious influences; religion takes it to an entirely different place.

"Agreed-upon presumptions of how the world works, ESPECIALLY when they include supernatural elements like "immortality", "destiny" and the like are MUCH WORSE to the common good."

Can you name me some that are agreed upon?

For many people, their leader IS their god, and they are just as fanatic about it as any religion. Fanaticism is not exclusively associated with religion institutions and never has been.

People will band together and fight for the right to subjugate those of another race, their assumption being one of superiority and a need to keep the order correct. The "them" definition by which people are mobilized against others usually has some kind of racist or cultural superiority element built into it.

Religion can't be questioned from within; the mindset of the group is to preserve the group. You can argue against a human being or his/her beliefs, but if you accept a supernatural being, that acceptance itself precludes questioning it. The real problem is the afterlife concept; once one accepts this happy little fear antidote, one will do all sorts of things. Much of societal control is based upon an assumption that the individual doesn't want to die; afterlife belief messes this all up and gives us suicide bombers.

Although fanaticism isn't the exclusive domain of religion, those acts that stem from it or have a religious component are much more dangerous. The secular approach to stomp out Communism because it wanted to steal your private property was pretty effective, but the added element of them being godless fiends really got the boys marching.

Let me restate my premise, because the end of your post is a confirmation of my thesis, while addressing itself as if it's a contradiction. My point is this: many political or social beliefs have been used to get people to band together to go on conquest frenzies (revenge for territorial thievery, racism, deservedness of economic gain, elimination of a threat, etc.) but the ones that are the most effective are ones that either embody or employ religious belief. Because of this, on balance, religion is net BAD, not net good.

Fanaticism with a religious element is much worse than secular fanaticism. The record's pretty clear; it doesn't matter whether the leaders actually believe, and it doesn't matter whether the belief itself is the cause, the important thing is the utilization of belief to get people to lay their lives on the line and be willing to dehumanize their enemies.

People who don't believe in an afterlife are more reluctant to risk their life. Ones who believe that their leader's ideas and values are correct will not fight as relentlessly as those who KNOW that their leader's plans stem from god. There will also be a questioning of one's actions in times of extremes when one is in service of other mere mortals, whereas there will be much less dissent when, by definition, one is obeying the goodness and true light of the universe.

As for your contention that for many people their leader IS their god, I completely disagree. If someone believes in a supreme being and a leader, when the two come into conflict, they'll choose their god. Maybe they won't do it immediately, but their loyalty will ebb and they'll slowly peel off. If their leader is of the same religion, it's much harder to separate the two, and it's a huge leap of logic and loyalty to reach the conclusion that the leader is wrong. The only mechanisms for this are these: god is wrong (that very rarely happens) or my leader really is not of god (that's a little easier, but still harder than rejecting a secular leader).

I'd like Junior to answer this: when the Constitution and the Bible are in conflict, which do you obey?

The god belief takes away one's responsibility to prove anything. It is because it is because it is and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Belief is the sworn enemy of thinking. Belief is also the hallmark of fear of the unknown. Although religion may salve the wounds and keep people from the ultimate despair of finality and decay, it is, in the end a betrayal. One is (in my opinion) much better off to live comfortably with a great deal of uncertainty. It makes one a better neighbor, because it makes one aware of one's limitations and unafraid of change. It makes one more able to deal with change, and in a time of rapid change like this, it's a good thing; indeed, I think that the acceleration of change is precisely why so many have gone to religion: to end the fear of confusion. Non-belief can allow one to simply be a prick and do as one pleases, but it also makes one inherently more of an accepting creature. It makes one prize life much more; the idea that this short existence is all we have is MUCH better for making things better for us all. It's far too easy to tell the lower rungs of society to shut up, because by eating this shit, they'll get some big damn endless vacation of joy. I don't buy it. I say that most of the energy spent on organized religion is based on subjugation of people, whereas the spiritual needs are fed on a regular but secondary basis.

You can't argue with a superior being, especially one who refuses to show up to take the heat. If it's such a damn all perfect whatever, it's a cowardly wretch that loves toying with inferiors, playing games and demanding obedience without having the decency to even make its existence fairly obvious. There are many impulses that draw one to belief, but far too many of them are slave mentality: looking for Daddy's approval.

A superior being can't be wrong. Harnessing this energy for worldly gain is much more powerful than secular inducements alone.

The bottom line is this: religion isn't playing fair. It's the act of demanding superiority over others: the Allfrighty demands it of the believer, and the believer has it over the heathens. There is no questioning allowed, because it's true as a given. All the elaborate constructs to justify this are merely self-serving justifications for one's own superiority over other people, hence, it's undemocratic: this is aristocracy.

Accepting rules only works if you never encounter something that isn't directly covered by the rules. Religious belief saps the analytical abilities of the individual, except for the acuity it engenders in those who develop elaborate mental dances to pick holes in contrary arguments. To paraphrase Mark: what does it matter if one gains god but misses out on life?

Disillusionment with an ideology (or a cult of personality) is an ego-searing event, but it's nowhere near the calamity of losing your religion. The risks of hereticism are separated by an order of magnitude. Lose your grounding, perhaps your moral compass with the former, lose your chance for immortality, your reason for being, with the latter.

I don't have time to respond to everything now, but trying this definition on for size:

"Being religious means asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence and being willing to receive answers, even when the answers hurt." ~ Paul Tillich.

There are no universally agreed upon assumptions in religion. The definition of religion itself isn't even universally agreed upon. A "superior being" is not a necessity of religion, nor are any of the other things you mention. So what you have done instead is build up one particlary manifestation of the religious experience and attack it as though it was universally applicable to religion in general, and that is not fair.

I agree with you fully the one particular brand of religious experience you describe and critique deserves to be criticized. In fact one of the best critiques of that kind of sanction/rule enforcement control morality I've ever read was in George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. I have some strong critiques of some parts, but one part he really nailed was on this particular brand of sanctions. Unfortunately, that doesn't even come close to encompassing all religious manifestations or even a fraction of them.

The idea that a superior being can't be wrong is not an agreed upon assumption. Nor the idea that there is a superior being at all, nor the idea of omnipotence, omniscience, or any other "om" of classical theism. Oh yes, and belief in an afterlife certainly doesn't have to have anything to do with religion, and often doesn't.

So again... what are these universally agreed on things you were trying to mention?

It's a tidy rhetorical device to claim that someone refuses to defend a statement he never made, and it's a galling one to use words like "trying" to dismiss the individual as one who's incapable of expressing his ideas.

Here's my original statement:

"Agreed-upon presumptions of how the world works, ESPECIALLY when they include supernatural elements like "immortality", "destiny" and the like are MUCH WORSE to the common good."

Where am I saying that there's a universal anything? I'm saying that groups that concoct some guess about how the world works and act upon it as if it's fact (that's virtually each individual religion) are dangerous. It doesn't matter whether the various conflicting guesses agree; by definition, they would have to have differences, or they'd be redundant. This all refers to any group and its collective guess. Virtually all religions fit into this category.

You misstate what I say, and then dismiss points to make it seem like the thinking's muddled. Nowhere do I say that an afterlife has to be a part of religion; in fact, I specifically refer to religions that have afterlife concepts as being dangerous. That negates your point right there. What on earth do you mean by "belief in an afterlife certainly doesn't have anything to do with religion"? My jaw's in the way of my typing hands with that one.

Religion may have helped your life, but that doesn't give you the right to absolve it of its dangers. I've known quite a few people with debilitating mental illness, and EVERY ONE of them had an extreme religious issue in early family life. It's an unfair summation, since 90% of Americans are believers, but it does show that lots of horrible things are either caused, helped along or hidden by the overwhelming assumption that faith is good. The fact that it helped you through things doesn't give it a blank check.

Let's look at reality here: fundamentalist Christians gave us George W. Bush. Whether he believes it or not, his use of their rapacious world conquering energy is what got him close enough to steal the '00 election. Fundamentalist Christians (like their counterpart Muslims) consider it their duty to shove their guess down everybody else's throats, convert them, and TAKE OVER THE WORLD. This isn't just the sweet light of joy that takes the sting out of mortality, it's greedy, selfish, brutal thuggery that's sanctified and demands exemption from any human restraints. It's bad. Add up all the good and the bad, and it's still really bad. If the world goes up in flames, it will have been either caused or overwhelmingly helped by religion. If we drown in a sea of ourselves through overpopulation, it will be because of religion.

Did you honestly misread something that's pretty damned obvious, or are you using all of your rhetorical skills to shore up your position, even to the extent of deliberately misrepresenting statements to somehow marginalize them? One will do many things to protect his religion, and in the process, one will feel absolved of many acts of anti-social behavior; is this the case here?

There is hostility toward religion here on the board, and there's toleration of it. There's also intolerant demanding by the religious to have special status just like in the rest of society. The bias here is neither for nor against, but since the bias is not only for believers but vigorously against non-believers in the rest of society, the contrast makes it look like it's biased here. Believers own the rest of the country and most of the rest of the world; be happy with that. If you care about your fellow man, though, you should be spending your efforts hammering the right-wing Christian activists and trying to take back your faith from the greedheads. It's the fault of people of faith if they don't rein in the forces of darkness; we who don't believe can't do that. I take responsibility for the hotheads who brutally attack religion--I'm not proud of them and don't condone their actions, much as I might understand the impulse--and you have to take responsibility for those who act from the justification of belief. If that which brings joy to you brings sadness to others, it's your damned duty as a sentient being to straighten out the people who are using it to dominate the rest of us.

I will give you the benefit of a doubt that you simply can't read and aren't deliberately twisting words to marginalize and dismiss them, but I'm not going to let you off the hook for holding the rest of us subject to the vagaries of your guess holding sway in the public realm, and I take umbrage at your flip dismissal of my "trying" to express myself. I may well suck, but I do so in an orderly and coherent fashion. More than that, I take time out of respect for anyone else's time who may be reading.

You've given over your life to a guess. I'm happy it works for you, but don't get mad at the rest of us for all the hell on earth it brings us. I assure you it does. You want a favored status, and I say that you don't deserve it. I grant you equality, and dammit, you need to be satisfied with that. Otherwise, you're taking more out of the world than you're putting back.

"Agreed-upon presumptions of how the world works, ESPECIALLY when they include supernatural elements like "immortality", "destiny" and the like are MUCH WORSE to the common good."

Religion is not necessarily about "immortality" or "destiny."

"Where am I saying that there's a universal anything? I'm saying that groups that concoct some guess about how the world works and act upon it as if it's fact (that's virtually each individual religion) are dangerous."

Religion is not necessarily about acting as though anything is "fact" either. As far as guessing goes, to some extent that is what we do when we open our mouths to speak about anything. You may object and point to science and its evidence. But even true science is really saying, this is the best explanation we have to fit the evidence that we have as we understand it today - any good scientist will caution you about the myth of certainty.

For some people, religious experience is not about creedal affirmation of a set of unexamined dogmas. I have a real experience in my life that I desire to articulate in words, and I use religious language to metaphorically and symbolically represent this real experience in my life because its the only language I have with which to do so. Asking me to cease using that language is asking me to deny a genuine real part of my living experience on earth - and no matter what you say I'm simply not willing to make that sacrifice. My experience of life includes elements that I've found are best described via religious language. Religious language for me is like a tool set to help me describe some ambiguous and not immediately quantifiable experiences that I nevertheless genuinely have.

Perhaps I could describe these experiences and understand them via other language but right now I don't have it. What I'm unwilling to do is deny this experience in my life simply because you want me to. I'm not willing to shut down or ignore this part of my living experience because you don't like it.

"You misstate what I say, and then dismiss points to make it seem like the thinking's muddled. Nowhere do I say that an afterlife has to be a part of religion; in fact, I specifically refer to religions that have afterlife concepts as being dangerous. That negates your point right there. What on earth do you mean by "belief in an afterlife certainly doesn't have anything to do with religion"? My jaw's in the way of my typing hands with that one."

I only meant that belief in an afterlife does not necessarily have to be a part of a religious belief, and frequently is not part of a religious belief.

"Religion may have helped your life, but that doesn't give you the right to absolve it of its dangers."

I don't think I've done that. What I have done is said that I don't believe abusive religious manifestations are the root cause of the problem, but rather I believe that these abusive manifestations like all abusive institutions are symptoms of a deeper root cause. I am certainly not absolving religion of its clear and obvious abuses. I've never said otherwise, in fact I've been frequently critical of the abuses of organized religion and its misuses and perversions. Of course that is possible. I've never said otherwise.


"Let's look at reality here: fundamentalist Christians gave us George W. Bush. Whether he believes it or not, his use of their rapacious world conquering energy is what got him close enough to steal the '00 election. Fundamentalist Christians (like their counterpart Muslims) consider it their duty to shove their guess down everybody else's throats, convert them, and TAKE OVER THE WORLD. This isn't just the sweet light of joy that takes the sting out of mortality, it's greedy, selfish, brutal thuggery that's sanctified and demands exemption from any human restraints. It's bad."

Sounds to me like fanaticism/fundamentalism is the problem. I've never said otherwise. Fanatical extremism about anything, including religion is usually a recipe for very bad things.

"Add up all the good and the bad, and it's still really bad. If the world goes up in flames, it will have been either caused or overwhelmingly helped by religion. If we drown in a sea of ourselves through overpopulation, it will be because of religion."

Where we disagree, is that I believe if there were no religion in the world at all, absolutely none we would be no safer or no better off and no less likely not to send the world up in flames. We would just find other manifestations for the same root core problems of which religious abuse is currently a symptom, not a cause.

"Did you honestly misread something that's pretty damned obvious, or are you using all of your rhetorical skills to shore up your position, even to the extent of deliberately misrepresenting statements to somehow marginalize them? One will do many things to protect his religion, and in the process, one will feel absolved of many acts of anti-social behavior; is this the case here?"

I guess I just misread something. It was not my intention to be intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresent statements. I'm still struggling to see quite how I did that. But maybe we just come from such opposite points of view that I accidentally made biased assumptions about what you were saying, or something. I don't think I am particularly anti-social, nor do I feel like I could easily be labeled as particularly closed minded, so please accept my apology for misrepresenting your statements.

"There is hostility toward religion here on the board, and there's toleration of it. There's also intolerant demanding by the religious to have special status just like in the rest of society. The bias here is neither for nor against, but since the bias is not only for believers but vigorously against non-believers in the rest of society, the contrast makes it look like it's biased here."

What special status am I demanding? I really would like an answer to that one. You read every post I've made in this thread - tell me if I've asked for anything other than a mutual respect between believers and non-believers. I have a great respect for those of no-belief. The more rational and insightful they are, the more I respect them. I'm not going around talking about how your world view is warped or trying to argue that your lack of belief is ruining the world or responsible for evil - really, I'm not making any critical comments about your belief in non-belief at all. What I would like is a similar attitude and less hostility from your side of the isle. Honestly, I think you and others raised profoundly good points and have extremely valuable critiques on the nature of religious misuse and abuse and the problems inherent in institutionalized religiosity. Believe it or not, they are many of the same criticism and critiques I have written about myself as I am frequently critical of organized religion, especially the fundamentalist Christianity that seems so prevalent in the United States today. I would love it if there was a spirit and attitude of peace and openness between us so that it was OK with you that I do describe myself as a religious man just as it is OK with me that you describe yourself as an irreligious man, and that we could talk openly and honestly about some of the problems inherent in this and other institutions.

But instead what happens is there is a militant aggressiveness, almost hatred I think, of anything remotely spiritual in nature - so that a person cannot even feel comfortable having a personal piety not forced on anyone else, because even that is constantly assaulted - the things that person may personally value are savagely and repeatedly ridiculed, mocked, and lambasted in the most vicious of spirit. I cannot get over the level of absolute, pure black hatred that I see frequently expressed toward anything and anyone even remotely religious. And that just isn't right. I don't care who you are or what you believe. I cannot accept that this is the most appropriate and beneficial kind of attitude, no matter how right or wrong a person is.

But that's just the thing - all I want is fairness and a little bit of toleration. If I ever start telling you or anything else what to think or believe, then I would DESERVE your swift and fiery assaulting condemnation. If I ever started proselytizing or trying to evangelize, I would deserve to be scorned. But I've done none of that. And most of the scant few religious folks who frequent this board have not done that. So I don't think its asking for special status at all to ask for peace and toleration.

"if you care about your fellow man, though, you should be spending your efforts hammering the right-wing Christian activists and trying to take back your faith from the greedheads. It's the fault of people of faith if they don't rein in the forces of darkness; we who don't believe can't do that."

My friend, I can't tell you how much I completely agree with that. I know - I know very clearly that this is my responsibility and the responsibility of every spiritual person of a more reasonable and progressive faith to take a strong stand against this kind of terrible stuff. Not a day goes by when I don't think about and seek out opportunities to do just that. Right now all I have been able to do is do things locally. I've protested, I've stood on our capital steps, I've written in our papers, I've spoken out against the misuse when I can. One of the essays I've written for my blog this year was entitled "Christianity without Christ" and it was written after that despicable state of the Union address where Bush announced his support of gay bashing, and I wrote about how Christianity in the political mainstream has completely discarded Christ from its message.

http://selwynn.blog-city.com/read/449793.htm

I know none of that is enough. I know I need to do more. That is why I'm looking at leaving my job as a project manger in the computer development industry and seeking to work non-profit - to deal with these very issues; to take a stand. I don't disagree with you that this is our responsibility.

"I will give you the benefit of a doubt that you simply can't read and aren't deliberately twisting words to marginalize and dismiss them, but I'm not going to let you off the hook for holding the rest of us subject to the vagaries of your guess holding sway in the public realm, and I take umbrage at your flip dismissal of my "trying" to express myself. I may well suck, but I do so in an orderly and coherent fashion. More than that, I take time out of respect for anyone else's time who may be reading."

Fair enough, I stand corrected and chastised. I again apologize for any misrepresentation of your remarks.

"You've given over your life to a guess. I'm happy it works for you, but don't get mad at the rest of us for all the hell on earth it brings us. I assure you it does. You want a favored status, and I say that you don't deserve it. I grant you equality, and dammit, you need to be satisfied with that. Otherwise, you're taking more out of the world than you're putting back."

I believe certainty of any kind is a myth. The real question is what guess have the consequences and potential problems you are best equipped to handle. I don't understand how you can say I want favored status. Can you explain to me how I want that? If you grant me equality and can truly treat me that way, that is all I desire.

I appreciate the detail of your posts - both of them. As a writer of many words I know that it takes investment and care to do so. I don't disagree with everything you say - I think you make a lot of valid points, and I think your particular criticism of institutionalized religion are particularly scathing for the fundamentalist fanaticism that is sweeping the political landscape today. However, as you concede, not all religion is like that, and for a person whose religious experience is little more than metaphorical poetry - an attempt to describe in words an phenomenological experience personal and private yet as elusive as describing the color blue (blue being a real experience but difficult to quantify without referential representation) - it is difficult to identify with the criticism. I think it is important to remember that with all the scathing critiques of "religion" made from the non-religious, they nail half of their hearers to the wall in their hypocrisy, but the also alienate and distance the other half of their hearers, liberal and progressive free thinkers and mystics who have a personal piety and no desire to force that on anyone - they hear what you have to say and feel like someone has just beat the shit out of them on a street corner blaming them for something they didn't do. They, who were walking along minding their own business not asking anyone else to believe as they do, pick themselves up off the mat after your brutalizing tirades wipe the blood off their mouths and the tear from their eyes and say, "what the hell just happened?


Edit - I have probably unfairly said "your" this or that, when I shouldn't have. What I mean is instead of "your brutalizing tirades" I should have said "the brutalizing tirades of people who seem to hate religous people."

You expect privilege because you are in a community that's seeking refuge from the reactionary forces of control; we are an abused lot, and this is our sanctuary. Odd though it may sound, one who espouses beliefs of those allied with the forces of wickedness should expect LESS of a welcome.

I'll still point out that there are always a few stalwarts to stand up and insult or attack the more strident non-believers, regardless how it balances out. We all take hits here, and so it should be, but beliefs of the dominating vast sweep of mass media and society are going to draw more fire. If you go into a Lesbian bar and try to defend the traditional traits of masculinity--and their are some, mind you--you deserve to get your ass kicked.

Do we get no place where we are allowed any refuge from belief? To expect that you shouldn't have to take hits here is to claim some kind of privilege. As a non-believer, I know I'm not of the majority here, but I know it's a lot more tolerant than elsewhere; I recognize that I'll take hits on the subject and accept that. You seem surprised that you do.

Flawed though the statement is that you quoted to start the thread, there's lots of truth to it. (It was someone else's statement, I don't mean that it's your fault.) Religion is simply the very best way of motivating people to do horrible things, and it's so widespread in the modern world that it's definitely the number one fuel being fed into the fire. You may not think this is so, but look around: most countries use subtle or not so subtle versions of "god is with us" to send the boys over the wire. It's just too good a tactic and always has been.

You are absolutely correct that we see things from very different vantages. I see belief as counterproductive and anti-thought. It is too easily subverted and used. Beyond all that, I don't buy or like the concept that there's some big whatever out there who's having some kind of playtime with us; it absolves us of our actions, makes the whole thing meaningless, glorifies not taking responsibility for our actions, confuses the living fuck out of people, leads people to endure crap that they never should have and wastes shocking amounts of time that could be spent on things we CAN figure out.

The basic thrust of your thread was that it wasn't true that religion fuels most of the ugliness of the world, and that those of faith are being treated unfairly here. The former, I believe, is incorrect because religion is a worldwide scourge, always there to help leaders justify aggression and subjugation. Women are held as chattel in most of the world, and the justification is god's relegation of them to little more than breeding stock status. When people tell you that women are equal in Islam, ask them how many husbands they can have. Ask the Southern Baptists about their recent affirmation that man is the boss and woman the vassal. It's a handy tool to say that there's a divine design: you can't refute it unless you refute the belief itself or cause a huge rift along these lines. Religion causes far too much mayhem, because whether it's the religious leaders who do it or secular leaders who use the beliefs to do their dirty work, the belief system provides the ammunition. The assumption that many believers are brought up with that non-believers are morally inferior is perfectly well accepted by many, and they wouldn't consider themselves bigots for doing so. Your latter premise, that believers are unfairly treated, simply doesn't hold water. This is a haven for those of us who get buffeted by religion on an hourly basis, have to keep people away from our children, have to watch our backs at work and have to watch our world rip itself apart over silly guesses. You aren't on friendly ground here. It's not that it's all that unfriendly ground, it's just that you're used to having your presumption be off limits for reproach, and here you're fair game. If believers get the shorter end of the stick than non-believers here, it isn't by much. If non-believers are more nasty, it also isn't by much, and when the thousand natural shocks they're subject to on a constant basis in society at large is taken into account, you should be thankful you don't get slagged even more.

Do we get no place where we can speak our minds? Do you not realize how remorseless and constant the hammering of the believers is in this society? Most of us aren't anti-religious, we'd just be happy with "religion neutral", but to many believers, even that is an affront. The true Fundamentalist considers it his/her right to pour forth with it without any restraint or provocation. I have small children, and on many occasions, I have to stop people. Sometimes they know what they're doing, but often, religion is so deeply ingrained in their psyches that they don't even know they're doing anything particularly intrusive. If I tried to set their kids straight, I guarantee you they'd probably not be as gentle as I am.

On neutral or ever-so-mildly alien territory, you have no right whatsoever to expect immunity. Religion is used as the prime excuse or enabler of ugliness in the world; sure, it's human greed, violence, and immaturity that's really at play, but it's a hell of a tool.

Thanks for taking the time, and thanks for the tone. We need to understand "the other" more than we do in this world, and the specialization of the media is making that increasingly difficult. Don't judge all non-believers by a few vocal hotheads; if you talk to them, you'll probably find that religion has caused them much pain in their lives. Everybody is, after all, a sum of his/her experiences.

Does this answer your question? We take hits here and you guys take hits here; by claiming that you shouldn't have to or are getting too many is to claim privilege whether you claim the right to insult or not. Even if you are mild and sweet and never insult a non-believer's lack of belief, you still don't deserve the right to not have yours taken to task or have to endure it in the abstract. Agnostics didn't torch the Trade Center. Somehow, whether we try to keep cool about things, believers keep fucking up this potentially nice world. It's very easy for us to look at it like this: we're universally hated, and we're not the guilty ones. When someone comes along saying the common thread among the evildoers isn't a valid fiber, it gets to us. It's the nature of the beast, and it's by definition the hottest of hot topics. Realize this as you wander about on this board: many of us on this consider religion to be an overwhelming evil, so you're treading on tender ground.

Last of all, EVERYONE is on edge about what's going on in the world right now, so tempers are skittish.

The only thing I would say is that, as much as you might desire a refuge from "believers" this is not that place. Democratic Underground is not Atheist underground, nor non-believer underground, nor anti-religion underground. It is a place for ALL liberal, democrat, progressive types to come to community together. There is no prerequisite that non-believers are the "real" community and believers are the outsiders. I appreciate the ways you feel under assault, especially now, especially in this current US climate. I apologize for that. I mean, its not directly my fault, but as a religious person, I apologize anyway.

That being said ~ being religious here is often treated like being a freeper here, and that isn't privilege, nor equal, its simply unfair. Being a non-believer is not synonymous with democratic platform or principles. Even our candidate for president is a practicing catholic. And this place here is for people who share those like political aims to come together. Without meaning to sound combative, "we" have as much right to be here as "you," if you understand my meaning.

In my world, I would want a place where the things which united us, our democratic political commonalities, completely overshadowed our irrelevant differences, which for the purposes of these forums, are our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

It's not that I'm insensitive to your statement/question, "Do we get no place where we are allowed any refuge from belief?" And in the sense of proselytizing and evangelism, you should have that refuge. But in another sense, though you probably deserve it, that place is not here. This is a place for democrats of all stripes to come together. And we ought to be able to show a healthy respect for each other. I try very hard to respect my atheist friends here, and I imagine that you do too. But you seem to have an attitude that says, you are the insiders, religious folk are the outsiders here. I don't see any grounds by which that is at all appropriate.

As a Democrat and a Liberal I have as much right to be here as anyone else. No more, but certainly no less. And I have an expectation that I be treated with respect. I don't go around throwing my religion in everyone's face - or I certainly don't mean to. But when the subject comes up, I'll speak from my experience. I expect that to be treated with fairness. And that is not an unreasonable or illegitimate request.

Believers and non-believers both get lambasted here, it's part of the charm. Relative victimhood is a very subjective thing, and what you term "respect" is what I'd call "immunity".

Whether you goad, bait or harass the godless doesn't much matter; others do, so the waters are already muddied. If too many tend to sneer at your belief, then avoid those threads, and realize that there have been over 44,000 entities registered here (with tombstoning, duplicates and whatever, that's probably in excess of 15,000 currently active people) so the percentage of the icky is rather low, and you should be able to find a decent conversation.

"Welcome" is a sketchy concept too; to some, this means "unconditionally" and "unanimously". That's not going to happen much of anywhere. You're going to take hits for your belief. I take hits for my heresy, and some of them are unwarranted; then again, I get away with a lot, so it balances out. I don't expect life to ever be safe, tidy or accepting. That doesn't mean that I use this as some wild card to slash and burn, but I do get tired of people expecting some kind of rhetorical flak jacket. Shitheadedness is an equal opportunity, pan-cultural affliction, and we can find friends and annoyances in any group we choose.

If there's a slant here, it's pretty slight, and open to debate. Personally, I think the slant is in favor of belief, but with a great deal of toleration of the rest of us. The difference is that it's contrasted with a world that's so overwhelmingly tilted in favor of belief that it seems more heretical here than it is.

In short, you are entitled to respect since you're not a bomb thrower, but you also deserve some tussling here and there because you expect something approaching irreproachable status. Like it or not, belief causes HUGE problems in this world, and it gets unfettered access to the microphone of life virtually everywhere, while the rest of us have to watch our step.

Don't focus on fairness, think of causality.

original post.

What is it about humanity that drives people toward a common belief?

The problem is that people have a serious propensity to not think for themselves. It's not religion or God or Allah or Buddha or anything else on that level- if those things didn't exist, something else would just come along to fill the role that the people demand.

And it's not as if we don't see the very same types of behavior in non-religious contexts. A sense of community implies a common belief, doesn't it? One sees groupthink everywhere that people must come to a consensus in order to work together, whether it be a corporation, a basketball team or a street gang.

Clearly, the problem is much, much broader than religion.

But if you can get rid of some of the concealable repeating religions with the big clips, you might slow down the horror.

Religion isn't necessarily the guy with the gun pulling the job inside the bank, but there's a cleric behind the wheel of the getaway car outside, and armed deacons keeping an eye on the side streets for 'em.

Granting religion the status of "goodness" is far too dangerous for society, and those who would hold us all ransom for their comfy little guess are more selfish than should be allowed.

hypocrites...that's another story.


failure.

I know many fine people who are "Christians", but I know far more who are hypocrites who attend church.

is not a christian.

you can call yourself a fire hydrant but that don't make you one.

You know exactly who attends church, who doesn't, how it impacts their behavior and whether their actions are true or hypocritical?

Are you God?

from secular countries we have screwed over like Vietnam where 2 million of them were killed and they actually like America compared to the muslim world.

Virtually all religion is at odds with the scientific and philosophic evolution of the human race because it is based and founded on controlling people.

Whether it's making people ashamed of their bodies, ashamed and afraid of sex,(most of christianity and Islam) justifying segregation(southern baptist), or being used to germinate a generation of fucked-up-terrorist-minded muslims through madrassas, it is an utter waste of humanity.

...they don't make me ashamed of my body.
...they don't make me ashamed of sex.
...they don't make me believe in segregation
...they don't make me hate other people
...they have nothing to do with controlling anyone.

What it has done for me is:

...saved my life from a mess of a place where I wanted to die
...taught me that compassion,love and social justice are the highest aims and principles of life, and I daily want to learn to love better, feel compassion more, and work for social equality
...helped me understand and learn to love my family, and reconcile to them
...taught me how to be a better man, how to listen, how to empathize, how to nurture and cherish the women in my life.
...gave me a profound sense of peace and happiness.

I feel the need to say I am far, far from perfect, but its not about being perfect for me, its about being BETTER. And I'm doing that daily. :D

Now, let me ask you a question - what could you possibly say to make me want to give that up? Why can't we call people who do terrible things in the name of religion wrong, without attacking the faith that is so positive and healthy for so many people out there? Fanaticism is bad - in EVERY institution. Fundamentalism is bad in EVERY institution. Intolerance and hypocrisy is bad in EVERY institution.

out and stand up against the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons and the Billy (and Franklin) Grahams and the James Dobsons and the Louis Sheldons and the Bill McCartneys and the Tim LaHayes and the Ralph Reeds and the Fred Phelpses and the Benny Hinns and all the other Nazis/fascists/lunatics/bigots/jack-asses who claim to have God's ear? These so-called "Christians" are the ones who are dominating the public discourse with their Gospel of hate/fear/loathing/intolerance/ignorance/disrespect/exclusion, last I have heard and seen -- and not for the common good, either.

For whatever reason(s) your type of Christians are not hitting the airwaves and the op-ed pages and the streets spreading the Gospel of love/peace/tolerance/intelligence/respect/inclusion that at least SOME of us in this country want and need to hear. And it's not because you don't have the ability or the means to do so, either. It's way past time this type of Christian came out and engaged these people, let them know that what they claim to believe ain't cool. They need to be called on their bullshit. Peace.

The reason why is because most of "my kind" of Christians don't believe that spirituality should be a political force. We do speak out against the evils done in the name of religion by people like this. I've written to my local paper regularly. And the progressive liberal theologians of many academic settings have created a large, large, large libray of books, journals and scholarly works. They teach in schools, the minister in church communities. Locally, the Interfaith Alliance of Idaho is very active - and just a few months ago I stood toe to toe with non-believers, and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims in 10 degree weather to protest the arrival of Fred Phelps and company in our town.

Where else are these folks you might ask? They are working with kids in inner cities, they are taking care of the needs of the homeless, they are concealing runaways and people in trouble, they're taking people with no place to go into their homes, they're traveling to Africa and east Europe to build homes and treat diseases and meet needs.

The one key difference is that "my kind" of Christian (if there is such a thing) doesn't believe that the "church" should be a political tool. I speak out regularly in my local community, but I don't believe their should be a more "liberal" version of the Christian Coalition - I believe the whole idea of institutionalize politics and religion like that is wrong. There will never be a "counter" organization to hate groups like that, because I don't believe that any kind of organization like that is even appropriate.

Yes, we speak out wherever we can, but the bottom line is, I think a lot of "my kind" believe that faith is a matter of personal piety and no public politics. My faith goes directly into how I live my life and the kind of work I do and action I take. I speak out where I can and do what I can, but if someone wanted me to join a political Christian organization I would refuse, even if it was supposedly more "liberal" -- I just don't think that is what spiritual faith is all about.

But still, having said all of that, I don't think your point is completely without merit - I would like nothing more than for there to be a much more organized "resistance" to this brand of hate. It's something I've committed to in my own life.

I've been wanting to say that for awhile. You did so very well.

James Hillman wrote in his latest book:

"...Once you feel your own personal soul to be distinct from
the world out there, and that consciouness and conscience are
lodged in that soul (and not in the world out there), and
that even the impersonal selfish gene is individualized in
your person, you are, psychologically, Christian. Once your
first response to a dream, a bit of news, an idea divides
immediately into the moral "good" or "bad", psychologically
you are Christian. Once you feel sin in connection with your
flesh and its impulses, again you are Christian. When a hunch
comes true, a slip-up is taken as an omen, and you trust in
dreams, only to shake off these inklings as "superstition",
you are Christian because that denomination bans nondoctrinal
forms of communication with the invisibles, excepting Jesus.
When you turn from books and learning and instead to your
inner feelings to find simple answers to complexities, you are
Christian, for the Kingdom of God and the voice of His true
Word lies within. If your psychology uses names like ambivalence,
weak ego, splitting, breakdown, ill-defined borders for conditions
of the soul, fearing them as negative disorders, you are
Christian, for these terms harbor insistence upon a unified,
empowered central authority ... and you are especially an American
Christian when idealizing a clean slate of childlike innocence
as close to Godliness. We cannot escape two thousand years of
history, because we are history incarnated, each one of us thrown
up on the Western shores of here and now by violent waves of long
ago. We may not admit the grip of Christianity on our psyche,
but what else is collective unconsciousness but the ingrained
emotional patterns and unthought thoughts that fill us with the
prejudices we prefer to conceive as choices? We are Christians
through and through."

-- A Terrible Love of War, pp. 190-91

I have been ruminating on this for a couple of years now. As
far as I can see (which may not be very far), the question isn't
about whether we should be religious or irreligious, spiritual
or non-spiritual. Whether we accept as axiomatic the teachings
of the new testament, the koran, the book of bosco, or F=ma,
we are seething masses of religious and spiritual forces,
drives, impulses, whatever you wish to call them. The question
really is: how conscious of them are we? What should our
relationship with them be?

I have no answers.

J.

This has been the question most occupying at least part of my mind for several years.

and that excuses abuses by any institution?

you are right that if all religion disappeared tomorrow, there would still be evil people.

Some of them would just be more poorly organized.

as well as good. No, it does not excuse abuses by any institution, however the only hope of overcoming such abuses is to understand and overcome the root problems. There are root problems inherent in the institutionalization of anything - because it systematically leads to a propsensity for control and power concerns to dominate, and totally shut out whatever the orginal intentions were.

But I'm not convinced it absolutely inevitably has to be that way, and that's no excuse for demonizing all religon.

completely independent of that of the individual members.

Furthermore, I think some institutions, organized religious institutions prominent among them, have anti-progressive agendas and provide cover for those with anit-progressive nonbenevolent intent.

I am aware that not all religious individuals are alike and that not all religious institutions are alike. But on balance, my opinion is that religion is ultimately an obstacle to progressivism and organized religion is a negative influence on the world and on our species. This is particularly evident historically in two types of circumstances:

1. when two religions come into political or geopolitical conflict

2. when religion is used to implement or maintain political control over a population

This is ironic, since the today's orthodox christianity was created primarily under both of the above circumstances for political purpose.

Just my opinion.

And I don't take them for granted.

to do their will. A belief in a higher being and a set of moral principles to live by is not by itself a bad thing. The evil occurs when people use religion as a way to discriminate/dominate others for selfish reasons.

has contributed to the ATROCIOUS RAPE of Iraq. Take all your "philosophical" discussions, corporate intere$ts$, and *MIC rapists back to the U.S and discuss your "fine-points" there as you deal with your FREAKED OUT kids. Bitte.

I'm not sure I earned your aggression.

because it is a system of belief that can lead to both great intolerance and great charity, depending on how one interprets it.

it is the human dilemma between competition and cooperation. How we view those who are different from us determines how we balance these two factors. The difference could be religion, colour, politics, team loyalty etc.

The extreme version of competition is war, which is the situation we're in at the moment. On a macro level this works for a while if you're on the winning side, as those at the top get more money, power etc. On an individual level it sucks for anyone who has any kind of empathy or sympathy for others (i.e. the troops, the Iraqi civilians etc).

dynamic.


People in the group thinking they are better than those outside the group.

As long as there are weird, unrealistic beliefs that must be adhered to...and rituals that set one group apart from another... as long as the group does not include all of humanity... there will be problems.



Just like someone was saying in another thread - after the Cold War, conservatives were looking around for who the next enemy would be. Rush and others told them it was the liberals. Part of their egoism stems from believing they are somehow holier, and therefore better.

I believe religion does make it easier for people to think they are better than others. And Rush and Company have capitalized on that tendency to get others thinking of liberals and people who don't share their religion (conservatism, really) as evil. (While Rush is the hateful one).