Religion is Evil on Earth

getthegarglein

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

Reading and viewing the video (link in text of news report) on this story has so reminded me, and brought dramatically home to me, the total futility of extreme religious belief... I feel nothing but utter despise and hate for the men involved... i would rather kill myself than be like these people... i actually felt glad to read that 20 men of the same faith as this poor, poor girl were taken off a bus and shot. I'm wondering what other people feel (particularily people who have a strong religious faith) when they hear about this kind of thing. I personally cant understand it. Is it that they really think they have to do this sort of thing because they are ordered to by a 'god', or is it something else like, for example, that they are just bloodthirsty males looking for attention?

wes

getthegarglein wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.honorkilling/index.html

Reading and viewing the video (link in text of news report) on this story has so reminded me, and brought dramatically home to me, the total futility of extreme religious belief... I feel nothing but utter despise and hate for the men involved... i would rather kill myself than be like these people... i actually felt glad to read that 20 men of the same faith as this poor, poor girl were taken off a bus and shot. I'm wondering what other people feel (particularily people who have a strong religious faith) when they hear about this kind of thing. I personally cant understand it. Is it that they really think they have to do this sort of thing because they are ordered to by a 'god', or is it something else like, for example, that they are just bloodthirsty males looking for attention?

Such killing happen across different cultures and religions (they have different names a lot of the time). Not sure why they happen, there disgusting regardless of who carries them out. A lot of people will find any reason to justify there base desires be it religion, honour, the greater good.

I have to say the act of killing of 20 men because they share the same religion as the perpetrators is abhorrent. Revenge is never the answer and I find it odd that you were "glad" at there murder. Both acts of barbarity should be condemned.

andrew

Religion isn't evil, people are evil. Does religion make them evil? I dont think it does - the common message of nearly every religion, the root to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and everything in between is the whole 'love your neighbour as yourself' thing. Anything outside of that is evil perpetrated or encouraged by by evil people who have distorted religion from what it really is. Thats what i think anyway

getthegarglein

wes wrote:

I have to say the act of killing of 20 men because they share the same religion as the perpetrators is abhorrent. Revenge is never the answer and I find it odd that you were "glad" at there murder. Both acts of barbarity should be condemned.

i totally agree with u on that one... part of my point, if i had one, was that i felt like compounding the stupidity and baseness of those actions by feeling blanket hatred twards everybody of the same faith as those scumbags... so, i was trying to get at the fact that religion not only is evil itself, but breeds evil...

getthegarglein

andrew wrote:

Religion isn't evil, people are evil.

good point. do u reckon in a world without religious excuses these guys would be dragging girls out into the street and kicking/stoning them to death anyway? i think so...

andrew

in a world without religious excuses people could just as easily make up other ones, ethnic/cultural/family etc.

Firewalkwithme

You can only really be shocked by something once, after that it becomes almost normal.

Cartoon_Head.

wes

getthegarglein wrote:

good point. do u reckon in a world without religious excuses these guys would be dragging girls out into the street and kicking/stoning them to death anyway? i think so...

A lot of so called religious violence isn't even about religion. A lot of them are about money and other things. Religion is a useful tool to get a few useful idiots on board and give them a sense that there doing the right thing.

Call Me Jimmy

That is fcking sickening. Filthy, jealous, disgusting animals.

getthegarglein

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

That is fcking sickening. Filthy, jealous, disgusting animals.

i agree with jimmy

robindch

andrew wrote:

in a world without religious excuses people could just as easily make up other ones, ethnic/cultural/family etc.

This careless "well, they'd do it anyway" response is a common religious reply to religiously-motivated violence. And, yes, of course, people could make up other excuses, but they usually don't, because religion is the one area where people don't yet have the courage to tell others to shut up and keep their antisocial opinions to themselves.

Where else could you see somebody suggest that women should cycle a bike with a cabin on it and expect to be taken seriously?

MoominPapa

robindch wrote:

religion is the one area where people don't yet have the courage to tell others to shut up and keep their antisocial opinions to themselves.

And atheist communist dictatorships

karen3212

The problem for me, is that some of the religious books mention stoning or wars between them, thus making all that read those bits fear them.
If the bible said, god exists, he loves us all and would like us to live peacefully with each other, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Please read your bibles or other good books, and try and understand why believers of another religion might fear the group that follows them. Fear often leads to hate.

getthegarglein

karen3212 wrote:

Please read your bibles or other good books, and try and understand why believers of another religion might fear the group that follows them. Fear often leads to hate.

people trying to get understanding from those damn books is at the heart of the problem (granted not everyone, but there's significant numbers of lunatics out there). what good will that do for dua khalil and the others who await a similar fate?

finlma

andrew wrote:

- the common message of nearly every religion, the root to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and everything in between is the whole 'love your neighbour as yourself' thing.

That might be the common message but read back over the Old Testement and things like this stoning are a drop in the pond compared to the violence in that evil book.

And some may say that only certain messages should be taken from the OT but thats just cherry picking to suit oneself.

Scofflaw

MoominPapa wrote:

robindch wrote:

religion is the one area where people don't yet have the courage to tell others to shut up and keep their antisocial opinions to themselves.

And atheist communist dictatorships

I'll just make the usual note that state-enforced "atheism" is meaningless when discussing the behaviour of people who have chosen to be atheists - but hey, whatever straw you're clutching is your straw, and I wouldn't want to deprive you of its comfort.

You seem also to have missed robindch's point - which is that in normal societies, religious groups are the only groups that are allowed to prominently espouse opinions that are openly intolerant of specific social groups like homosexuals.

In other words, I can get away with saying that homosexuality is wrong and sinful if I'm expressing my religious viewpoint, but not if I'm expressing a personal opinion. Odd, eh?

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

getthegarglein wrote:

people trying to get understanding from those damn books is at the heart of the problem (granted not everyone, but there's significant numbers of lunatics out there). what good will that do for dua khalil and the others who await a similar fate?

I don't know who dua khalil is,

but essentially I was trying to say that people can't pretend the bible(the book i know most about) doesn't encourage stoning people or children for all sorts of little things.

How can they not see how fearful it might make a sane man to tell him that the bible is your holy book. It is a disgrace. the further away from that book christianity moves the better, assuming christians in this case can't let go of God.

5uspect

andrew wrote:

Religion isn't evil, people are evil. Does religion make them evil? I dont think it does - the common message of nearly every religion, the root to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and everything in between is the whole 'love your neighbour as yourself' thing. Anything outside of that is evil perpetrated or encouraged by by evil people who have distorted religion from what it really is. Thats what i think anyway

Well religion is a product of humans. How we use it is entirely up to us.
If a god or gods exist or not is irrelevant, the religious doctrines invented to worship your particular god are man made.

Dismissing the human race as evil and letting our most useful weapon off the hook I think is a bit shortsighted. I'll think you find that many religions state say love your neighbour only if he is also a believer. Indeed Sam Harris makes that assertion about Jesus' teachings in the End of Faith.
The Hadith is quite clear about what should be done to apostates.

What do you see as the true purpose of religion?

Dades

andrew wrote:

in a world without religious excuses people could just as easily make up other ones, ethnic/cultural/family etc.

I completely agree in principle, but the fact is religion does make it too easy to "justify" certain behaviours. And society is to afraid to cross that boundary.

But you can't help but think if those men didn't find some excuse in their 'faith' to kick a defenceless girl to death, they'd find another way to satisfy their bloodlust.

karen3212

The Atheist wrote:

I completely agree in principle, but the fact is religion does make it too easy to "justify" certain behaviours. And society is to afraid to cross that boundary.

But you can't help but think if those men didn't find some excuse in their 'faith' to kick a defenceless girl to death, they'd find another way to satisfy their bloodlust.[/QUOTE
Isn't it the fear though, of being infected by a different religion.

I mean I can't easily be turned to become French for example, cause I was born in Ireland. It is something I can't change, and somone else being french can't really persuade me to change, cause no matter what anyone says I was by accident born in Ireland. Same with my language, culture difference, it is not really something I can be converted to, I may prefer another language or culture but the one I was born into is mine and by accident mine.

I think religion is different, as it is a choice at the end of the day, and the believers often from reading the books of other religions, think the others are out to infect them with a different religion/convert them.
I find it difficult to explain myself sometimes, but essentially I think religion is different, one can convert to another religion, the other differences are truely throughout history not choices.

Dades

karen3212 wrote:

Isn't it the fear though, of being infected by a different religion.

The only one that looked afraid was the girl they were beating to death.
Blaming religion takes too much responsibility from the actual perpetrators who are nothing short of murderers.

karen3212

The Atheist wrote:

The only one that looked afraid was the girl they were beating to death.
Blaming religion takes too much responsibility from the actual perpetrators who are nothing short of murderers.

Yes I understand they are responsible for murder. But I still want to know why they really did it, I mean really, why?

Call Me Jimmy

karen3212 wrote:

Yes I understand they are responsible for murder. But I still want to know why they really did it, I mean really, why?

Mainly because of ridiculous interpretations of rags written by un-civilised people thousands of years ago. I think they love killing people and use religion as an excuse, it's entertainment to them, much like public hangings used to be.

Scofflaw

karen3212 wrote:

Yes I understand they are responsible for murder. But I still want to know why they really did it, I mean really, why?

Well, you've never been a bloke, I take it? Men, particularly younger men, are violent. They commit most of all crimes, and virtually all the violent ones.

Violence in younger men, particularly in a sexually repressive society, is just looking for somewhere to hang its hat. Kicking an attractive young girl to death for pseudo-sexual misdemeanours (consorting with 'outsider men') is just a perfect lightning rod - no better reason necessary.

glumly,
Scofflaw

Call Me Jimmy

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, you've never been a bloke, I take it? Men, particularly younger men, are violent. They commit most of all crimes, and virtually all the violent ones.

Violence in younger men, particularly in a sexually repressive society, is just looking for somewhere to hang its hat. Kicking an attractive young girl to death for pseudo-sexual misdemeanours (consorting with 'outsider men') is just a perfect lightning rod - no better reason necessary.

glumly,
Scofflaw

Exactly, well said.

karen3212

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, you've never been a bloke, I take it? Men, particularly younger men, are violent. They commit most of all crimes, and virtually all the violent ones.

Violence in younger men, particularly in a sexually repressive society, is just looking for somewhere to hang its hat. Kicking an attractive young girl to death for pseudo-sexual misdemeanours (consorting with 'outsider men') is just a perfect lightning rod - no better reason necessary.

glumly,
Scofflaw

So is there a case for adding oestrogen to the water of young men. No, I am being a little bit ridiculous. edit Oh yeah, so you think a more sexually repressive society is worse, I need to think about that.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Violence in younger men, particularly in a sexually repressive society, is just looking for somewhere to hang its hat. Kicking an attractive young girl to death for pseudo-sexual misdemeanours (consorting with 'outsider men') is just a perfect lightning rod - no better reason necessary.

glumly,
Scofflaw

Agreed it is an adequate reason for the actions of the mob, but does not explain why policemen stood by and why there is almost no chance that anyone will be tried and punished for her murder.

For those explanation you need to look at the society where it happened and organised religion influences that to a huge degree.

Maybe you can't blame religion for a mob of men kicking a girl to death, but you can surely blame it first for the creating a society where police will stand by and let it happen, and secondly for not considering it a crime that needs investigating and the murderers brought to justice.

5uspect

I think Scofflaw is right. Young men can get very hot headed very quickly. Just look at the streets of this country on a saturday night. A little bit of alcohol can turn your average 18 year old into an animal if provoked.

Justifying honour killings with religion or principles of family honour gives them an outlet to act like the animals their hormones are telling them to be. Could religion be the vodka and RedBull of the Middle East?

Remember tho this isn't a new thing. This is something that has been exploited by armies, political movements and various religions for centuries, we're just seeing and hearing a lot more of it now.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Agreed it is an adequate reason for the actions of the mob, but does not explain why policemen stood by and why there is almost no chance that anyone will be tried and punished for her murder.

For those explanation you need to look at the society where it happened and organised religion influences that to a huge degree.

Maybe you can't blame religion for a mob of men kicking a girl to death, but you can surely blame it first for the creating a society where police will stand by and let it happen, and secondly for not considering it a crime that needs investigating and the murderers brought to justice.

I'm still not quite certain that religion is the reason. Honour killings and other such excrescences flourish where the rule of law is weak - and that is usually where the state is poor.

With prosperity comes the increased rule of law, and bit by bit the police no longer stand idly by - but religion plays no part, except to be reinterpreted to suit the new status quo. Christianity has undergone much of this reinterpretation process, because it is found predominantly in wealthy, well-governed states - Islam has not (come to that, neither has Hinduism).

A reasonable test would be Northern Ireland - Christian, prosperous, but with strongly divided communities and chronic breakdowns in law over the past 40 years - so I would expect 'honour beatings' at least. When was the last time a Catholic girl got a beating for fraternising with Protestants, or vice versa, would you think?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

While the men who did this are obviously to blame for the murder itself, it's worth remembering that this was a pre-meditated murder, presumably organized by the local religious service providers who couldn't take that somebody stopped listening to them, and presumably put it about that she was coming back into town and needed dealing with. I believe that these craven primitives are at least as much to blame as the physical murderers themselves.

I disagree with The Atheist that blaming religion, in part, is a step too far, because none of this would have been possible without the legitimizing idiocy of organized religion which provided the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out this barbaric act.

BTW, if nobody's read up on them, or forgotten them since they last came up, the social psychology experiments of Stanley Millgram (getting people to electrocute others), Gerard Zimbardo (the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment), Jane Elliott (blue eyes, brown eyes) and others are worth recalling. All of these experiments showed how easy it is to turn ordinary people into dangerous maniacs if the right social pressure is put on them. Authoritarian religion has had a very long time indeed to perfect its different ways of generating and applying this social pressure.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

While the men who did this are obviously to blame for the murder itself, it's worth remembering that this was a pre-meditated murder, presumably organized by the local religious service providers who couldn't take that somebody stopped listening to them, and presumably put it about that she was coming back into town and needed dealing with. I believe that these craven primitives are at least as much to blame as the physical murderers themselves.

OK - any evidence for that?

robindch wrote:

I disagree with The Atheist that blaming religion, in part, is a step too far, because none of this would have been possible without the legitimizing idiocy of organized religion which provided the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out this barbaric act.

Or race...

robindch wrote:

BTW, if nobody's read up on them, or forgotten them since they last came up, the social psychology experiments of Stanley Millgram (getting people to electrocute others), Gerard Zimbardo (the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment), Jane Elliott (blue eyes, brown eyes) and others are worth recalling. All of these experiments showed how easy it is to turn ordinary people into dangerous maniacs if the right social pressure is put on them. Authoritarian religion has had a very long time indeed to perfect its different ways of generating and applying this social pressure.

The missing part of that thesis is "what's in it for them"? I can understand people using religion as an excuse for violence, social control of breeding resources, and demarcation of in-group and out-group, but I don't see what organised religion gets out of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

The missing part of that thesis is "what's in it for them"? I can understand people using religion as an excuse for violence, social control of breeding resources, and demarcation of in-group and out-group, but I don't see what organised religion gets out of it.

I think you're missing the point of the thread; you see religion is pure unadulterated, unmitiged evil. It takes pleasure in the pain of others and is the consort of satan. It eats the flesh of infants.


... the worst part is I don't think my sarcasm is coming across...

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I think you're missing the point of the thread; you see religion is pure unadulterated, unmitiged evil. It takes pleasure in the pain of others and is the consort of satan. It eats the flesh of infants.

Blast. I knew I'd forgotten something.

Fallen Seraph wrote:

... the worst part is I don't think my sarcasm is coming across...

Er, no, I think I got that bit, actually.

I tend to see the whole "religion is eeeeevillll" thing as being part of the general human willingness to ascribe to active agency what is equally well explained by chance and stupidity....hmmm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. :eek:

PDN

So, let's get this straight. People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil?

By the same logic, the police force of one city stood by and did nothing. Therefore all police everywhere are evil.

An Irishman planted a bomb that killed innocent people in England. Therefore all Irish people are evil.

What is this silliness?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So, let's get this straight. People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil?

By the same logic, the police force of one city stood by and did nothing. Therefore all police everywhere are evil.

An Irishman planted a bomb that killed innocent people in England. Therefore all Irish people are evil.

What is this silliness?

Hush, hush - it's just "atheists are eeeevvillll" played the other way round. It is, as you can see, equally silly whichever way one plays the game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

So, let's get this straight. People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil?

By the same logic, the police force of one city stood by and did nothing. Therefore all police everywhere are evil.

An Irishman planted a bomb that killed innocent people in England. Therefore all Irish people are evil.

What is this silliness?

You persistently confuse principles with people - I've noticed this tendency of yours in other threads too.

Religion itself is a malign influence. Particularly monotheistic religion. I wouldn't go so far as to say evil because concepts like that are the preserve of theists. But monotheistic religions are inherently and demonstrably intolerant and divisive.

That does not mean all religious people are malign, not by any stretch, in the same way that not all people who supported the German Nazis were malign, or every Iraqi Ba'athist to cite a more recent example. (These are transparent examples, while the malign nature of religion is more disguised). Many 'good' people subscribed to these philosophies/organizations, for all manner of reasons: failure of education or understanding, social pressure, fear, ignorance, simply being mistaken about what they really stood for, even the desire to do good. And I'm sure many otherwise 'good' people did indefensible things once given permission by their leaders - as is the point of robindch's reference to those psychology experiments.

So don't take it personally. Throughout history intelligent and well-meaning but misguided people have subscribed to malign philosophies, not understanding the true nature of that in which they participate.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

You persistently confuse principles with people - I've noticed this tendency of yours in other threads too.

Religion itself is a malign influence. Particularly monotheistic religion. I wouldn't go so far as to say evil because concepts like that are the preserve of theists. But monotheistic religions are inherently and demonstrably intolerant and divisive.

That does not mean all religious people are malign, not by any stretch, in the same way that not all people who supported the German Nazis were malign, or every Iraqi Ba'athist to cite a more recent example. (These are transparent examples, while the malign nature of religion is more disguised). Many 'good' people subscribed to these philosophies/organizations, for all manner of reasons: failure of education or understanding, social pressure, fear, ignorance, simply being mistaken about what they really stood for, even the desire to do good. And I'm sure many otherwise 'good' people did indefensible things once given permission by their leaders - as is the point of robindch's reference to those psychology experiments.

So don't take it personally. Throughout history intelligent and well-meaning but misguided people have subscribed to malign philosophies, not understanding the true nature of that in which they participate.

The logic works the same whether you apply it to people or principles. OK, let's keep it to principles:

1 People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil.

2. Paramilitaries who belonged to a particular political party/viewpoint used to shoot children through the kneecaps, therefore all political parties/viewpoints are evil.

3. Stalin who held to to a particular atheistic philosophy committed many brutal and horrible acts, therefore all atheism is evil.

All three statements are equally silly.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

OK - any evidence for that?

Nope, other than that the 1,000 men reported in a regional newspaper here to have turned up were presumably not waiting for her by chance and had to have been organized. Possibly her family did, but I would imagine it's more likely that one disaffected family member leaked it to the mullahs who organized the reception committee. Am willing to be corrected if anybody can come up with a better cause.

Scofflaw wrote:

The missing part of that thesis is "what's in it for them"? I can understand people using religion as an excuse for violence, social control of breeding resources, and demarcation of in-group and out-group, but I don't see what organised religion gets out of it.

With this kind of show, the mullahs can send the unmistakable message that they control the society and not the state's administration, and therefore, the state had better look after the mullahs and their needs. Remember that the cops and army were reported to have done nothing -- that's a powerful message for an administrator to receive.

BTW, if I'd had time last night, I would have mentioned that, as I was writing the previous post, I was in the business lounge in Dubai airport, and just out of the corner of my eye, I could see to muslim women trying to eat their soup while wearing Niqābs -- pieces of black cloth around ten inches square which hang from just underneath the eyes. Usually in the Middle East, guys can't see women eating because the women must eat in separate "family" sections they can take off the veil, niqab or whatever. But in this case, there was no family section and there were men around, so the niqabs had to stay on. Imagine, if you will, using your left hand to lift up a huge handkerchief stuck to your face and have your right hand maneuver a dribbling spoonful of noodle soup into your mouth which you can't see. It didn't make for tidy eating and didn't do much to convince me, in its own tiny way, that religion, in many parts of the world, is about anything other than control.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

1 People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil.

That's obviously false. But there is much more compelling evidence that monotheism is malign (I personally try to avoid the word evil).

PDN wrote:

2. Paramilitaries who belonged to a particular political party/viewpoint used to shoot children through the kneecaps, therefore all political parties/viewpoints are evil.

And again, I agree entirely that is silly. A philosophy must be judged both on the content of its articles and on its effect. Monotheism generally disguises its malign influence and beliefs behind apparently benign values.

PDN wrote:

3. Stalin who held to to a particular atheistic philosophy committed many brutal and horrible acts, therefore all atheism is evil.

Back to Stalin! I knew we wouldn't be able to keep away from him for long

PDN wrote:

All three statements are equally silly.

Yep.

robindch

PDN wrote:

So, let's get this straight. People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil?

Please read my message again, as I didn't say anything of the kind. I explicitly said that I was referring to "authoritarian religion", the kind that exists alongside military and state administrations to lend irrefutable, but conditional, legitimation to both, in return for access to things like schools, a cut of the tax take, general access to the levers of state power and the like.

I also mentioned that experiments show that people are quite easy to control and that religion has evolved to does this very well -- do you disagree with this?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The logic works the same whether you apply it to people or principles. OK, let's keep it to principles:

1 People who belong to one religion commit a brutal and horrible act, therefore all religion is evil.

No

Religion creates a belief system in a population that makes the population easy to manipulate by the few and also allows justification of immoral actions in the name of said religion.

As Steven Weinburg put it

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

Religion is, put simply, a bad idea and should be avoided as a social system.

Can other things produce similar results? Of course they can. Communism is the one that springs to mind, where the idea of the "State" is put ahead of individual rights and freedoms. But then these ideas should be avoided as well.

Religion is a social system that allows very bad things to happen much more easily than if it wasn't there.

PDN wrote:

2. Paramilitaries who belonged to a particular political party/viewpoint used to shoot children through the kneecaps, therefore all political parties/viewpoints are evil.

All political parties that hold to a philosophy that justifies shooting of children are.

For example extreme nationalism, such as what is seen in the North. The idea that because the country is "occupied" by a foreign power any and all acts of violence against said foreign power is justified and legitimate. Such an idea is immoral, but that doesn't stop a large number of good people holding to it.

How does this relate back to religion?

It relates back to religion because religion does the same thing, justifies the immoral in the name of a greater cause. Any and all acts of violence can be justified through a religion.

You only need to see how people on the Christian forum respond to comments made about the Old Testament to see this in action. I've met very few on the forum who will say out right "No, what the Israelites did in the Old Testament was wrong and immoral"

No one does this because it is part of their religion to believe that acts such as these carried out by true followers of the religion cannot be wrong or immoral no matter what they are, since what is wrong or immoral is decided by their god in the first place.

This illustrates how easy it is for good honest people to suddenly be justifying acts of mass genocide, simply because they are carried out under the banner of the religion, and they are taught through the religion that they were justified.

PDN wrote:

3. Stalin who held to to a particular atheistic philosophy committed many brutal and horrible acts, therefore all atheism is evil.

No, therefore Communism is evil (or "a bad idea" as I would put it)

Stalin was one man. The system that allowed him to carry out these brutal and horrible acts, or more specifically, that got generally good honest people to carry out these brutal and horrible acts, was the system of extreme Communism that had grown up in the USSR.

The idea that the State was more important than an one individual was used as justification of horrifically immoral acts towards the Russian people.

The idea that Stalin was working the interests of the "greater good", in the interests of the State, created a smoke screen around what he did.

Stalin is still considered one of Russia's most popular leaders by many Russian people. How is this exampled? Are the 80% of Russians who rate him within the top 5 greatest leaders of Russia all evil themselves? Of course not.

What is going on here is the manipulation of the standards of morality by a particular social system under the banner of belief.

Russians were officially atheists, but they followed the "religion" of total faith and trust in the State. Total faith and trust in anything, be it a religion or a particular philosophy, is dangerous.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Please read my message again, as I didn't say anything of the kind. I explicitly said that I was referring to "authoritarian religion", the kind that exists alongside military and state administrations to lend irrefutable, but conditional, legitimation to both, in return for access to things like schools, a cut of the tax take, general access to the levers of state power and the like.

I also mentioned that experiments show that people are quite easy to control and that religion has evolved to does this very well -- do you disagree with this?

No need to read your message again, since I didn't read it a first time. I wasn't responding to your message. I was responding to the OP.

Actually, I would agree wholeheartedly with what you say about religion legitimising military & state administrations, receiving any income via taxation, or having access to the levers of state power. I have repeatedly, both here and on the Christianity board, expressed my opposition to such practices. However, that is pretty irrelevant to the OP since the violence in question was committed by adherents of an extremely tiny minority religion that have none of that power.

karen3212

Is it not the case though that moderates cannot believe that people pick some passages from their book, and use that to justify what they do to others. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not true.

Anyway 40% of people in the US actually believe Jesus is coming back, and they are eagerly awaiting the rapture, does mean they are also eagerly awaiting the war and chaos that comes before it.

Scofflaw

A bit of research showing that sexual harrassment is not motivated by attraction, but by a desire to 'put women in their place'.

This sort of thing, the beating to death of a girl for 'fraternisation', rape as a weapon of war, and religion's frequent enforcement of 'traditional' gender roles would all seem to me to stem from the same thing. I don't think 'authoritarian religion' is the root cause of this kind of violence, I think it's an effect of the same root cause.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yub-chagi

Well I think that when rivalry develops between some people they flock together in groups and develop a sudden pride in a uniting factor to convince themselves theyre in the right. I've seen an american commenting on YouTube who took great pride in his patriotism only when arguing with a non-american. If there was no religion people would simply group together over another similarity against opposition. That's the way religion works, and i've heard argued that it is an evolutionary trait to encourage cavemen to group together under a druid or witch doctor, giving the group a better chance of survival. I think that theory holds water.

Dades

A well made point there, Mr yub-chagi.

robindch

yub-chagi wrote:

some people they flock together in groups and develop a sudden pride in a uniting factor

This is pretty similar to 'groupthink' and the Wikipedia page on it is worth a read.

pH

We definitely like in and out groups, and as English soccer fans (used to?) show any form of tribal colours can create an "us and them" situation that people will fight for.

However, in context most of these groups will be happy with some ritual combat or combat substitute. Most Irish folks are extremely happy at the thought of say beating England in football but only a tiny minority would start killing them because they're English.

Same in the the soccer hooliganism context, as horrific as the violence was, very very few people were deliberately killed, and certainly no Chelsea fan strapped a bomb around themselves and blew themselves up in the middle of opposing fans.

I suppose the point I'm making is that when religion takes these basic us and them situations and then adds religious faith: 'They're evil ungodly people' - 'We have god on our side' - 'Killing these people isn't a sin - it's your duty to God' then we have an extremely potent and dangerous mix.