Religions Behaving Badly

[Thorne]

I'm starting this thread to continue an off-topic discussion from the thread on Hell. As noted by denuseri, this really didn't belong there.

I will do my best to refrain from personal attacks on other posters, and I would urge others to do the same. We are all adults discussing an important and controversial topic. So let's keep it civil, shall we?

To recap a little,


While the leaders of the communist movement may have been atheist, such atheism had little or nothing to do with their actions. Their whole purpose was to control the very minds of their subjects. To do this they had to remove any other controlling forces, such as religion. It was greed and the lust for power that drove those men, not atheism. And not science. The only use the communists had for science was in trying to keep up with western advances in armaments.

Can we say the same of those killed for the sake of religions (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html)?

An interesting list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll), too.


So if you kill by way of religious intolerance, it is worse that to kill for lust for power?
The dead are just as dead.
The big difference to my mind is that religious leaders tend to proclaim their adherence to the tenets of goodness and justice and righteousness. In reality, they practice immorality, injustice and bigotry.

How many priest have to commit sexual crimes against children, how many preachers have to have adulterous affairs, how many mullahs have to call for the murder of authors before people realize that their religious leaders are "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites?

How many abortion workers have to be killed before people will learn that "Thou shalt not kill" also means "Thou shalt not kill those who believe differently from you"?

How many children must grow up educationally handicapped before people finally say, "No, the Bible is NOT science and has no place in the science classroom"?

And all of this (and so much more) because of an imaginary being who has no more reality than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

[Bren122]

This thread will inevitably play out like the other hundred or so similar threads on this forum and nobody is going to be a step closer to convincing anyone else of the rightness of their cause.
People kill and murder and lust for power and they use every reason and justification for it. People commit acts of base brutality and corruption; betray trust and duty under the cover of any organisation. To single out any one or any one group and say that it is worse or better than any other is a simplistic knee jerk reaction that is the same as saying the bad guys wear black hats.
this will inevitably go back and forth about fact versus faith and whether miracles really exist or how solid theories are and by the end of it all we will have proven is that, when it comes to these matters, there is not a lot a lot of difference between the extremists at both ends of the scale and the wise person will do well to trust neither.

[Thorne]

when it comes to these matters, there is not a lot a lot of difference between the extremists at both ends of the scale and the wise person will do well to trust neither.
I agree with you there. And I pretty much don't trust them, at either end of the scale.

But discussing these things can have some benefits. Sure, you're not going to convert the true believer, at either end. But for someone sitting on the fence, not sure which way to drop, the more information he can get, in either direction, the better his decision will be.

Over the last several years I have noticed that there are many people who have either lost their faith or who never had any to begin with, but were afraid to admit it, either to themselves or others, because they didn't want to be made to feel alone, different. With the more outspoken nature of the atheist/agnostic community, though, these people are realizing that they are not alone, that there are more people just like them. Surely that's a good thing, isn't it?

[Bren122]

The 'outspoken nature' of the atheist/agnostic/rationalist community has been in dominance since at least the middle of the 1970s in mainstream media and academia. I don't particularly care if people are religious or not; scientists or not; rationalists or not. what i can not stomach is the way that much of this debate on what is essentially a personal belief is being handled by the likes of Richard Dawkins and his followers in a sort of semi-religious frenzy and they can not see that they are perpetuating the very things they so readily criticise in religion. Dawkins went so far as to suggest that belief in a religion should disqualify a scientist from holding a publicly funded post in a debate on the BBC two years ago; I had a staff member who was Catholic and studying biology who was repeatedly bullied by one of her professors because she refused to toe the line on religion in his lectures. Yet when challenged that they are turning their beliefs into a pseudo-religion they invariably point back to this big concept of 'science' in terms that would make a God blush. The history of science is littered with frauds and deceits and dishonesty; yet the average person is encouraged to treat it in much the same way the Catholic Church expected to be treated in the middle ages.
Objections to global warming theories as presented by the IPCC and based on climategate are dismissed as nitpicking; but if the main organisation responsible for the main model on which the IPCC bases so many of its predictions is found to have perpetrated a campaign of dishonesty that not only blocks counter-arguments and evidence but 'tweaks' the evidence in its favour, how is this nitpicking? It turns out that many of the most advanced physics theories rely on the notion that only 5% of the universe is matter; the rest is either dark matter or dark energy for which we have no evidence and no justification other than that the theories don't work unless you have that 95% of unkown and unproveable (currently) dark 'stuff'. I dabble in it and study it as well as a novice is able to but I am constantly astonished that we are advised to 'take it on faith' that it is there by scientists who take a swipe at religion for undertaking much the same reasoning in their forwards and introductions.
non-religious civil libertarians are pushing for bills of rights in many countries at the moment, the one connecting feature that they are blatantly anti-religious. yet the whole modern regime and ideas of the rights of man and human rights was built in the aftermath of, and to prevent the recurrence of, the greatest religious progrom in world history- the Holocaust. yet not only is it fashionable to paint religions as being in opposition to this idea but it is also fashionable to make sure that religious freedom is not only ignored but impinged at every turn. The new Victorian(Aust) Abortion Law Reform Act not only removes religious and personal objections as reasons for refusing to refer patients for abortions but now makes it illegal to refuse to perform such procedures or prescribe such medicines. This was illegal under pre-existing legal frameworks but is now legal under the Charter of Citizen Rights.
Communists used science and the inescapable march of history to justify the imposition of their regime- regardless of how that is viewed, the fact remains that they used science and in science's name their victims died- just as the Nazis did. Of course their views of science were warped and can be dismissed as pseudo-science- just as we should dismiss the religiosity of people performing the same acts in the name of God(s). There were millions of communists who genuinely believed that they were creating a better world for the people; just as there are millions of religious people who believe the same thing of their own religion. And the vast majority of these people will do no harm in their lives and live out their lives if not exactly as Marx or God wanted then at least aspiring to the idea that their good works will make a better world. To condemn them for the actions of a tiny minority is an injustice equal to anything that is perpetrated by that minority.
Believe or not; disbelieve or not. It does not matter to me. But I am sick and tired of this culture's love affair with passionate extremists dictating not only the terms of the debate but the idea that there is no achievement in Human History that is not fundamentally flawed and worthless and evil because there is some objection to it on the grounds that it is pro-religion or anti-religion or pro-right or pro-left. We are stuck in a society that paints moderation and compromise as weak and evil and the refuge of cowards; so much so that we can no longer solve any problem that we are faced with. Perpetuating this debate in the terms of the original post is not going to convince anyone of anything; it is simply going to further delineate the debate and make it that much harder to reach a compromise that, even if it does not make everybody happy, at least satisfies the needs of the majority.

[thir]

The big difference to my mind is that religious leaders tend to proclaim their adherence to the tenets of goodness and justice and righteousness. In reality, they practice immorality, injustice and bigotry.



That goes for an awful lot of leaders of other kinds!

I have not respect for most leaders, but the few are those who, instead of trying to tell us what is good for us, try to do what the electorate tell them they need.

[Thorne]

That goes for an awful lot of leaders of other kinds!
Yes it does, which is unfortunate in and of itself. But most of those other leaders don't claim to be speaking for God.

I have not respect for most leaders, but the few are those who, instead of trying to tell us what is good for us, try to do what the electorate tell them they need.
Same here. The large majority of our leaders are greedy and interested only in their own political careers. Which is one reason I favor term limits for all political leaders, and elimiinating pension plans for elected officials. They should not be permitted to make a career of politics.

[denuseri]

How many politicial leaders then refer to god in their speaches?

Or have god included in the symbolism of their countires governemnt as if seeking his blessings for all their endeavors?

I bet you will be surprised to find its nearly all of them when you reaserch it.

[Thorne]

How many politicial leaders then refer to god in their speaches?

Or have god included in the symbolism of their countires governemnt as if seeking his blessings for all their endeavors?

I bet you will be surprised to find its nearly all of them when you reaserch it.

Wouldn't surprise me at all, given that there are still states in the US that have anti-atheist laws on their books. There was one just recently where an atheist was elected to public office and his opponent tried to keep him out based on an anti-atheist law. Which is unconstitutional.

Let's face it, something like 90-95% of people in the US profess to some sort of religion. It would be tantamount to political suicide for politicians to deny those beliefs. Now if we could only convince them to behave like they believe....

[denuseri]

Now if we could only convince them to behave like they believe....

Lets go a step further and convience them to behave like they "say" they believe. winks

[thir]

That goes for an awful lot of leaders of other kinds!



Yes it does, which is unfortunate in and of itself. But most of those other leaders don't claim to be speaking for God.



I understand your abhorrence of this. A dictator of another kind might be just as brutal and unconcerned with other people's lives, but at least he cannot threathen beyond the grave, or persuade people that he has a right to do what he does, because god gave it to him.

It is a limit of sorts, and makes for a better possibility of resistence.
I hope.





I have not respect for most leaders, but the few are those who, instead of trying to tell us what is good for us, try to do what the electorate tell them they need.



Same here. The large majority of our leaders are greedy and interested only in their own political careers. Which is one reason I favor term limits for all political leaders, and elimiinating pension plans for elected officials. They should not be permitted to make a career of politics.



I agree.

[thir]

How many politicial leaders then refer to god in their speaches?

Or have god included in the symbolism of their countires governemnt as if seeking his blessings for all their endeavors?

I bet you will be surprised to find its nearly all of them when you reaserch it.

I believe it is a cultural thing. I have never heard any political leader in any Scandinavian country do this, nor in UK. People would be utterly baffled if they did.

Religion simply has another role here.

[denuseri]

Look back in your countries history thir and you will find it replete with examples, and you wont even have to look back all that far, there are still official religions, and state sanctioned churches in place. Look in your governements political documents and symbology on some of the buildings and you will find its still refered to even today.

[thir]

Look back in your countries history thir and you will find it replete with examples, and you wont even have to look back all that far, there are still official religions, and state sanctioned churches in place. Look in your governements political documents and symbology on some of the buildings and you will find its still refered to even today.

OK, I understood that we were talking about present days.
Yes, back in history what you say would be true. Today,
absolutely NO.

Any politician who refered to gods as arguments or in arguments people would simply stop taking seriously - it is so far from the role religion plays in DK, which for most people is either nothing, or something extremely private.

In most homes, if anyone started to pray or talk about religious matters from a religious point of view it would cause acute embarresment.

Officially we are Christians, and the religion is a state religion. But in praxis the only persons who take religion seriously or are interested are a little minority in Jylland, the Muslems and the Asa tru people - all together probably less than 10% of the population.