Book Burning

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne,

Its not those old boogymen at all!

It's just that they were misguilded in their thinking when it came to religion.

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.

But what they found out was: removing religions from the equation the way they did it did nothing to get rid of the evil that was happening. I guess two wrongs really dont make a right huh?

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

Personal autonomy believes that as personal liberties are increased...strict religious adherence and fundamentalists zealotry becomes reduced all on its own with no hateful oppression from anyone. It also seems to reduce the overall amount of "evil" too, and without inducing the self indulgent headonism we so fear is overtaking us in the USA. They have been at it now for a couple decades at least with fairly good results.

Personal autonomy however doesnt want to drive religion out and burn everyone at the stake who keeps their beliefs, nor does it say that everyone who doesnt believe in what they believe in is stupid or whorshiping a three legged flag pole with a unicorn on top. Heck it doesnt even get rid of religions, it lets people practice them all they wish. What it did was promote giving people a choice. A choice to do what ever they wish to do with their lives without worry so long as they are not running around hurting other people.

Sound familiar?

Sound like a premise thats been tried before doesnt it?

Like here in America back in the days of the Founding fathers maby? or even yes, in Russia during their revolution.

Only thing is, as old as the consept may be, they are indeed doing it differently from their predessors...using just the carrot, and no stick.

If I sound like I using your own words against you with the same kind hyperbole over the past few threads where we have went through this exact same debate on religion vs aethisim...its becuase Im trying to show you exactly what your words look like when you use them the way you have...if you get my drift Sir.

Respectfully

denuseri

[Thorne]

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.

But that's my point! There are no atheist goals. The ONLY thing you can say for certain about someone who is an atheist is that he/she does NOT believe in gods. They can be conservative, or liberal, or progressive, or even Marxist.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.

Exactly! Which is why they fought to eliminate it. Trouble was, they tried to eliminate FAITH as well. I'm not advocating that at all.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.

At least that was their rhetoric. In practice it was something far less.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.

They went WAY overboard, I agree. But it wasn't because they were atheists. It was because they were Marxists who happened to be atheists.

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.

Agreed, but religion provides a means to control people, get them to believe what you want them to believe. Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, birth control, women's rights, all these things are being manipulated by mainstream religions, to the detriment of everyone. It's my contention that no religion has the right to tell me whether a gay person can be married, or whether a rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. It's not their right to decide. If MEMBERS of that religion which to adhere to these tenets, that's one thing. But they have no right to force those beliefs upon everyone. And especially not on the vulnerable minds of children.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

I don't want to replace religion! Personally, I wouldn't be saddened if all religious organizations suddenly vanished from the human equation, but I'm not advocating eliminating or replacing them. Just restricting them to where they belong: in Church, and in the hearts and minds of believers.

I have always been a proponent of personal responsibility, not blaming others for my own failings.

And yes, I do sometimes ridicule certain beliefs. But that's only because I see some of those beliefs as ridiculous. Like images of Jesus in a piece of burnt toast or plate of spaghetti. Or seeing the the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. Or even the newest one, the image of Kate Middleton in a freaking jelly bean! The psychological aspects of this kind of thing are well understood (pareidolia) but some people insist on claiming they are signs from their gods! I do not believe that, just because someone claims that something ridiculous has religious significance that it isn't just as deserving of ridicule. Want to avoid ridicule? Avoid making ridiculous claims in the name of your gods!

[thir]

It's my contention that no religion has the right to tell me whether a gay person can be married, or whether a rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. It's not their right to decide.

Amen to that ;-)

More than that, it is not their right to tell any gay person themselves about marriage, and so on.

I am not sure why a country with so much emphasis on personal freedom (and so it should be) tolerates the influence of the church.

[Thorne]

I am not sure why a country with so much emphasis on personal freedom (and so it should be) tolerates the influence of the church.

Exactly my point! And not just THE church, but ANY church. Religious organizations should not be allowed to have any more influence or privileges than any other secular organization. People wouldn't stand still if the NBA, for example, got a law introduced which restricted which TV programs people could watch during the playoffs, yet those same people have no quarrel with religious groups determining which stores people can shop at on Sundays.

[thir]

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

Militant atheist crowd? Why do people keep saying that? I have never heard of any atheist using weapens to promote their ideas.

Nor have I heard any hate rhetoric. Sharp opinions, but not personal.