Once Upon Atrocity

Zillah

Ok so the Muslim violence thread got closed but, as suggested, I think a discussion on the relationship between religion, authoritarianism, atheism etc and the atrocities committed by man could be worthwhile. I can't count the times that I've seen a critic of atheism trot out Stalin and Mao, so I think it's something we should address. For the purposes of the topic I would encourage people to consider the important difference between correlation and causation. My post from the previous thread was:

I don't think its a fair comment to excuse religion by saying that people just cause violence anyway. I think a naturalistic morality based upon respect for the rights of others, informed by empathy, leads to a very balanced person. Any sort of artificially constructed morality (such as the rigid dictates of a Holy Book), authority driven leadership (such as the dominance of the Nazi party) or abdication of personal thought and responsibility (such as a cult of personality re: Stalin) will encourage the sort of violence that goes down in history.

Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.

For the record I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything. If someone runs around stabbing homeless people in the name of Jainism I'm not going to criticise Jainism unless there is a real causal link.

Zillah

Also for the record, my argument says nothing about what any given religious believer is capable of. Any given Muslim or Christian could still be the nicest most pacifistic person in the world. My comments simply refer to religion and similar structures on average.

ChocolateSauce

I have to go now, dinner and TV call...but I'll say this:

I don't think anyone can claim the circumstances which arose in China and the USSR in the 20th century can be blamed on rational, critically-minded people.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything.

Why?

If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.

If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.

It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?

Handsome Bob

robindch wrote: »

Why?

If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.

If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.

It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?

How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"? Very few have the means of getting their opinion out there i.e. access to the mass media. The media will print the story of the Westboro Church threatening to picket Heath ledgers funeral because it's controversial and it sells and it feeds the notion of "religious nutjobs". What the media won't print is religious people rebuffing the actions of the Westboro Church because they don't want to know; it doesn't sell.

Goduznt Xzst

Reminds me of this quote:

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. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

Also, I'm sure there will eventually be a group that claims to be secularist humanist that does bomb hotels. The extent of human extremism knows no bounds.

JimiTime

LZ5by5 wrote: »

How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"? Very few have the means of getting their opinion out there i.e. access to the mass media. The media will print the story of the Westboro Church threatening to picket Heath ledgers funeral because it's controversial and it sells and it feeds the notion of "religious nutjobs". What the media won't print is religious people rebuffing the actions of the Westboro Church because they don't want to know; it doesn't sell.

Not only that, but people with even a little education should realise when people are going against the grain in such manners. I've talked to many muslims for example, who hate whats gone on. They've described it as a hijacking of their religion. Unfortunately, people feel more secure, when they can have different sets of people in neat little boxes. People however, don't really work that way.

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think anyone can claim the circumstances which arose in China and the USSR in the 20th century can be blamed on rational, critically-minded people.

True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point. People bring up these atheist dictators, to show that people will do evil things without religion. Religion can be manipulated in ways though, that people will fall for anything thats being peddled. Religion 'is' a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Religion 'does' do damage in many ways. From Jehovahs Witnesses being brainwashed out of their family, to Fred Phelps' followers being led to all that stuff we know so well, to David Koresh, to Muslim extremeists, to KKK etc etc. No-one can deny it. However, people abusing such power does not mean that all of it is evil and wrong. Unfortunately, people tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, which is why IMO, for people like Robin, its easier to just put us all in one big horrible pot called Religion.

Its why I shy away from religion, the word. Its become such a dirty word, and with good reason. I have a living Faith. Me, Jimitime. I don't want violence etc etc. There are millions of Christians like me, who live and have lived for years, side by side with atheists, muslims, jews etc etc. Yet there are some, who just want to pick out some wacko and hold them up as an example of 'Religion'. Thats my 2 cent anyway.

midlandsmissus

Personally,
I think the concept of religion is easy to abuse and can quickly descend into power structures, hierarchy, wars and an 'us against everyone else' mentality. I remember even when I was growing up, I wasn't a catholic but I grew up in that culture and would hear alot of the teachings, and you were definitely told 'everyone else is stupid, anyone who isn't a catholic is going to hell'. This wasn't just other religions, it was protestants, everything. It was complete brainwashing. You could see how that type of thinking could incite war.

Myself, I keep my religion as a very personal thing, and try to respect everyone else.

robindch

LZ5by5 wrote: »

How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"?

Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums. And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately, people tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, which is why IMO, for people like Robin, its easier to just put us all in one big horrible pot called Religion.

Are you saying that I don't understand religion? And this lack of understanding leads to fear?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums. And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.

And what would we hope to achieve? So that ignorant people would see that not all professing Christians feel that way? To incite the Phelps to feel persecuted? A worthless act. I'd rather go on in my normal Christian life, trying to live according top Christ and try being an example of him to others. Getting involved in tooing and frowing with nut jobs is certainly nothing I'd indulge in, just so you can tick a box.

CerebralCortex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Personally,
I think the concept of religion is easy to abuse and can quickly descend into power structures, hierarchy, wars and an 'us against everyone else' mentality. I remember even when I was growing up, I wasn't a catholic but I grew up in that culture and would hear alot of the teachings, and you were definitely told 'everyone else is stupid, anyone who isn't a catholic is going to hell'. This wasn't just other religions, it was protestants, everything. It was complete brainwashing. You could see how that type of thinking could incite war.

Myself, I keep my religion as a very personal thing, and try to respect everyone else.

Hope you don't mind me asking, but when you say the above in bold, do you mean you have your own interpretation of christianity separate from any other institutionalised dogma? Or do you identify with a particular church?

As I've said before its evident to me that religion is a manipulation of the anthropomorphising of that which the human race has little understanding of.

ChocolateSauce

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately, people tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, which is why IMO, for people like Robin, its easier to just put us all in one big horrible pot called Religion.

I'm gonna side with Robin here, I understand religion very well. I don't fear the average Christian or Muslim or Jew walking down the street. In fact, I go through life on the working assumption that everyone I meet is religious to some degree. If I lumped all people into one pot, it would mean I have to fear every person I see.

The only religious people I fear are those who are not only very very devout, but also in positions of great power (Bush), and people who are willing to take god's literal word into their own hands and flout societies laws.

And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to very long posts on the internet about why I do not like them.

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm gonna side with Robin here, I understand religion very well.

I think thats the fallacy though. 'I understand religion very well'. You understand certain aspects of certain religions, that is all. But on this basis, you build a mindset which may be right for some but not for others.

The only religious people I fear are those who are not only very very devout, but also in positions of great power (Bush), and people who are willing to take god's literal word into their own hands and flout societies laws.

Thats it though. You fear George Bush in power. There are many 'very very devout' Christians I know, that would be the most pleasent people you could meet. 'Devout' does not mean Ian Paisley. Every Christian should be devout, but again, its the more extreme cases that steal the headlines. There are many devout Christians doing aid work etc etc.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Getting involved in tooing and frowing with nut jobs is certainly nothing I'd indulge in, just so you can tick a box.

I'm not asking this question so that I can "tick a box" somewhere.

I'm just perplexed that somebody like Phelps can carry on his nonsense and no christians seem to get very worried by it. It seems to imply a degree of moral passivity on the part of christians that one wouldn't expect from their claims that christianity can make one lead a better ilfe. One would have expected that somebody corrupting the message, or bringing it into contempt, would be treated seriously.

Instead, nobody seems to care very much and it's interesting to wonder why.

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

Every Christian should be devout, but again, its the more extreme cases that steal the headlines. There are many devout Christians doing aid work etc etc.

Define "Devout Christian". Be as detailed as possible in your response.

The problem with all religions is that when they boil down to it they teach people "you're right, they're wrong... FACT"

If you look at everything that's wrong with society, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rascism, sexism, bigotry, religion... etc, it all boils down to this assumption of authority on a matter of opinion. You replace "FACT" with "maybe?" and you'd live in a much better world.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.

I think fervent religious belief is for the most part just a symptom of people who are pretty flaky to begin with. It's rather like the violent movies/video games argument. Of course the guys who shot your school up played Doom. They like shooting.

People who feel like they have some grand purpose and need to die for it will tend to bury themselves in their faiths or be attracted to ones which feed that delusion. Maybe there is a reciprocal thing in there, but I think simple causality is a non-runner.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point.

No, you should blame them on Communism.

When making the point Look what the atheist did! people ignore that in these countries there was a process very similar to a religion going on, in that there was an unquestioned authority dictating to the people what was supposed to be best for them. And people were supposed to follow the doctrine of this authority for the greater good.

Sound familiar?

JimiTime wrote: »

Religion can be manipulated in ways though, that people will fall for anything thats being peddled.

But you see that is the point. That isn't religion being manipulated. That is just religion.

That is what religion is. It is a group of people following what they believe to be an absolute authority, which dictates to them how they are supposed to be and act. That applies to you as much as those people blowing up the hotels in India. The only difference is what they believe they are supposed to be doing.

It applies to Communists in USSR butchering Christians because they believed in the authority of the Party to tell them what was best.

It applies to the Germans under the Nazi party, particularly the Hitler Youth brought up to believe Hitlers authority without question or doubt.

It applies to Christians who believe the Bible is the written world of God, the ultimate authority on everything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about the mind set. The idea that there is an unquestioning ultimate authority that dictates good and bad, right and wrong. The idea that this authority not only cannot be wrong, but shouldn't be questioned.

JimiTime wrote: »

Religion 'is' a dangerous tool in the wrong hands.

Religion is a dangerous tool. Period.

The wrong hands is just a question of time and opportunity. It is the mind set of the followers that allows the danger, rather than the simply the evil of the manipulator. By the very nature of the concept of the unquestionable authority you will end up with a situation that is prone to producing very bad things. One cannot separate say Islam and Islamic fundamentalist violence and say that the later is an example of the former in the wrong hands, because both are examples of the mind set of unquestionable authority.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, people abusing such power does not mean that all of it is evil and wrong.

But the problem is that such power will always be abused. The issue isn't the abuse of power. The issue is that people allow others to have that power in the first place

An analogy often used is that of gun control. People who are against gun control argue that just because a small fraction of people end up shooting up schools and offices, doesn't mean they shouldn't own guns. But issue with that argument is that for them to own guns you will get people who shoot up schools and offices.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its why I shy away from religion, the word. Its become such a dirty word, and with good reason. I have a living Faith. Me, Jimitime.

Well, you, Jimitime, and the entire collection of men who wrote the Bible and decided the rules about how you should and shouldn't live. It isn't even that you are being manipulated by one single person (as if you were a member of a cult following one leader), rather a whole collection of them, all of them claiming to represent the wishes of a supreme authority.

You do what they tell you to do, because you believe that they speak with the authority of a god, ie a supreme unquestionable entity. So does everyone else who follows a system like this, be they Islamists in India or Communists in Stalinist Russia.

Handsome Bob

robindch wrote: »

Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums.

How many religious people would you say you've come across? I hope it would be enough for a decent cross-sectional study on religious beliefs.

robindch wrote: »

And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.

Are you aware of what Phelps actually does? He blows a lot of hot air about picketing funerals such as the Amish school girls or for a family that burned in a fire in Kentucky because the state supports "sodomy". He then gets offered media air time in exchange for calling off his planned pickets. He's a publicity whore who doesn't even end up picketing when he publicises it; so how are Christians, or any group for that matter, meant to get organized to protest the Westboro Church's presence when they don't even turn up for half of the events that they claim they will?

That and the problem of willingly contributing to the circus that Phelps would create at a funeral. No-one wants to see two groups going at each other on a day like that.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I'm not asking this question so that I can "tick a box" somewhere.

I'm just perplexed that somebody like Phelps can carry on his nonsense and no christians seem to get very worried by it. It seems to imply a degree of moral passivity on the part of christians that one wouldn't expect from their claims that christianity can make one lead a better ilfe. One would have expected that somebody corrupting the message, or bringing it into contempt, would be treated seriously.

Instead, nobody seems to care very much and it's interesting to wonder why.

I'll leave you wondering why so.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Define "Devout Christian". Be as detailed as possible in your response.

Is actually quite a simple detail. Have faith in the risen Christ. Live according to his example. It really is that simple.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll leave you wondering why so.

As you wish

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you should blame them on Communism.

Why communism? Is communism, in ideological terms, quite a fair system? I'm not greatly educated on communism, but I was under the impression that its ideology was quite noble to a point, while its leaders wee not? Does communist ideology back Mao's and Stalins attrocities? Or was that just Mao and Stalin being egomaniacal Psycho's?

When making the point Look what the atheist did! people ignore that in these countries there was a process very similar to a religion going on, in that there was an unquestioned authority dictating to the people what was supposed to be best for them. And people were supposed to follow the doctrine of this authority for the greater good.

Sound familiar?

But em, so what. It wasn't religion. It was people who were atheists abusing the power they had. The abuse of power is certainly a familiar sight alright. Be it secular religious etc.

But you see that is the point. That isn't religion being manipulated. That is just religion.

That is what religion is. It is a group of people following what they believe to be an absolute authority, which dictates to them how they are supposed to be and act. That applies to you as much as those people blowing up the hotels in India. The only difference is what they believe they are supposed to be doing.

Using it so loosely, whatever your views are, you are religious. You follow what you think is how you should behave. You just so happen to view yourself as an authority on yourself. If you were to take up arms against your neighbour because you wanted to punish him for his dog soiling your garden etc etc. So its much the same. Yes I believe in Gods authority, and stating that the 'only difference is what we think we should be doing', is a pretty big difference. TBH, its a silly point.

It applies to Communists in USSR butchering Christians because they believed in the authority of the Party to tell them what was best.

It applies to the Germans under the Nazi party, particularly the Hitler Youth brought up to believe Hitlers authority without question or doubt.

Except they were not religious. Abuses of power most certainly, but not religious. Certainly not Christian.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about the mind set. The idea that there is an unquestioning ultimate authority that dictates good and bad, right and wrong. The idea that this authority not only cannot be wrong, but shouldn't be questioned.

Again, lack of understanding based on your belief that you know 'Religion'. I am telling you as a Christian that questions should be asked. Now the fact that I am classed as part of religion, insisted on by you in the past, means your premise falls. I've already said, which you disagreed with, that religion can be manipulated and abused. You simply believe that that is religion. I go back to my accusation against Robin. I think you like to compartmentalise. Keep it in a neat box, thats 'them'. People do not work like that, and if you insist that religion is people rather than organisations, then there is no box that can fit 'Religion'. What applies to me wont apply to PDN or Wolfsbane etc etc. Much like when I had the thread on Atheism here. I found that 'Atheists' don't sit neatly in a box, much like most people don't.

Religion is a dangerous tool. Period.

Again, it can be.

The wrong hands is just a question of time and opportunity. It is the mind set of the followers that allows the danger, rather than the simply the evil of the manipulator. By the very nature of the concept of the unquestionable authority you will end up with a situation that is prone to producing very bad things. One cannot separate say Islam and Islamic fundamentalist violence and say that the later is an example of the former in the wrong hands, because both are examples of the mind set of unquestionable authority.

Strangely enough though, Christ lived an exemplary life by which we should all strive. If we actually lived according to his example, we would be in a state of peace and security. Thus, only by abusing Christianity can one justify certain evils.

But the problem is that such power will always be abused. The issue isn't the abuse of power. The issue is that people allow others to have that power in the first place

Indeed, power will always be abused. Its why God said that 'Man will govern himself to his injury'. Be it religious, secular whatever. I however have seen guidelines and examples laid out by Christ which enhance both my life and those around me. I give no authority to men. In fact its one of the arguements myself and catholics have regularly. Papal power etc.

An analogy often used is that of gun control. People who are against gun control argue that just because a small fraction of people end up shooting up schools and offices, doesn't mean they shouldn't own guns. But issue with that argument is that for them to own guns you will get people who shoot up schools and offices.

Is that an arguement for the erradication of religion?

Well, you, Jimitime, and the entire collection of men who wrote the Bible and decided the rules about how you should and shouldn't live. It isn't even that you are being manipulated by one single person (as if you were a member of a cult following one leader), rather a whole collection of them, all of them claiming to represent the wishes of a supreme authority.

You are working from the assumption that all the bible writers have skillfully and dishonestly influenced me into my way of life. That is all it is. An assumption. Christianity works. It has made me happy. It has given me comfort. It has given me hope. It has given me good advice. It has made me a better person. It has relieved me of guilt (rather than the common notion of it making one feel guilty). Living according to Christs example works at giving me a fulfilling existance. So even if we leave aside the differring opinions on the truth, Christianity has enhanced my life. I don't want to kill my enemies. I don't agree with violence. I wholly believe in charity to both christian and non christian alike. To say that I am being skillfully led up the garden path though, is merely your faith position.

You do what they tell you to do, because you believe that they speak with the authority of a god, ie a supreme unquestionable entity. So does everyone else who follows a system like this, be they Islamists in India or Communists in Stalinist Russia.

Again, its like. 'You do as your told, so your as bad as hitler youth'. Its a nonsense position. There is a big difference between doing what your sadistic parents tell you to do when they say, 'Kill the Jew next door', and your loving parents tel you to do when they say 'love your neighbour. In your arguement though, we are alike because we both do as we're told.

In all honesty, and in the nicest way, I don't really wish to debate this. I suppose I've made my position known on it, and I've seen where these conversations can go. Hope you enjoy the weekend.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

Why?

If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.

If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.

It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?

I did specify that I would require a real causal link, such as exhortatory literature. I simply don't consider something done in the name of alone to be sufficient.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote:

True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point

The reason you can't blame atheism for Stalin's atrocities is because there is no causal link between them. If a Muslim blows up a train I can blame Islam because the Koran calls for violent conflict with the enemies of Islam. If a Christian beats a gay man to a pulp I can blame Christianity because the Bible calls for homosexuals to be put to death. If a Jehovah's Witness let's his daughter die because he thinks blood transfusion is evil then I will blame that wacky religion because that's exactly what they advocate.

Yes, the situation is always more complicated than I've outlined above, but the religious influences are still there. I really think I hit the nail on the head in my first post when I listed the three things that can lead to atrocity:
- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility

You'll find all three of these in virtually any given religion. I'm sure its adherents will argue differently, of course. Yes the Church expects every individual to use their freewill and form a personal relationship with God. You're still expected to obey the rules dictated by an ancient book though, you still have to submit to the leadership of a conservative fraternal elite, and you're still expected to think of mankind as lesser creatures than God.

Virtually all atrocity causing groups will have these elements too. Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Crusading Christianity...they all look the same to me. Yes we can say "Ah but Stalin was an atheist, it had nothing to do with religion!" That would be just a word game. It's the exact same mentality, merely with a supernatural God replaced with an Dictator and The State.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

The reason you can't blame atheism for Stalin's atrocities is because there is no causal link between them. If a Muslim blows up a train I can blame Islam because the Koran calls for violent conflict with the enemies of Islam. If a Christian beats a gay man to a pulp I can blame Christianity because the Bible calls for homosexuals to be put to death. If a Jehovah's Witness let's his daughter die because he thinks blood transfusion is evil then I will blame that wacky religion because that's exactly what they advocate.

Yes, the situation is always more complicated than I've outlined above, but the religious influences are still there. I really think I hit the nail on the head in my first post when I listed the three things that can lead to atrocity:
- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility

You'll find all three of these in virtually any given religion. I'm sure its adherents will argue differently, of course. Yes the Church expects every individual to use their freewill and form a personal relationship with God. You're still expected to obey the rules dictated by an ancient book though, you still have to submit to the leadership of a conservative fraternal elite, and you're still expected to think of mankind as lesser creatures than God.

Virtually all atrocity causing groups will have these elements too. Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Crusading Christianity...they all look the same to me. Yes we can say "Ah but Stalin was an atheist, it had nothing to do with religion!" That would be just a word game. It's the exact same mentality, merely with a supernatural God replaced with an Dictator and The State.

Do you think that the Nazi regime was influenced by religion Zillah?

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Do you think that the Nazi regime was influenced by religion Zillah?

Uhhrr...not sure exactly in what fashion you mean. There was certainly collaboration between Hitler and the Catholic Church, but more specifically National Socialism itself was an extremely cultish organisation built upon the three factors I've listed above. One could easily be described as "blaspheming" against Der Fuhrer or "sinning" against National Socialism. It was in all ways a non-supernatural religion, with Hitler replacing God, and the glory of National Socialism replacing the glory of heaven.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Uhhrr...not sure exactly in what fashion you mean. There was certainly collaboration between Hitler and the Catholic Church, but more specifically National Socialism itself was an extremely cultish organisation built upon the three factors I've listed above. One could easily be described as "blaspheming" against Der Fuhrer or "sinning" against National Socialism. It was in all ways a non-supernatural religion, with Hitler replacing God, and the glory of National Socialism replacing the glory of heaven.

I mean can you attribute any of the atrocities he committed to being influenced by say, Catholicism? Or his idea of an Aryan Master-Race, was that inspired by Catholicism?

Zillah

I never argued that the crimes committed by regimes such as Nazi Germany can be laid at the feet of religions such as Catholicism. I'm saying that such regimes are religions judging by how they operate.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

I never argued that the crimes committed by regimes such as Nazi Germany can be laid at the feet of religions such as Catholicism. I'm saying that such regimes are religions judging by how they operate.

Zillah wrote: »

Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.

So, even if a dictator is not religious, his crimes against humanity are inspired by;

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility

Attributes that religion has in spades you say. So indirectly, religion has influenced these men (Hitler, Stalin and Mao etc etc) in the structuring of their tyrannical regimes. Is that the jist of what you are saying or am I off the mark?

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So, even if a dictator is not religious, his crimes against humanity are inspired by;

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility

Well, not that they personally were inspired by such things, but it is what allowed them to attain and maintain power, to inspire loyalty, obedience and complicity from their subjects and to appear as morally upright while doing so. In reference to a quote earlier, these are the things needed for otherwise good people to be a party to horrendous deeds.

Attributes that religion has in spades you say.

Yes.

So indirectly, religion has influenced these men (Hitler, Stalin and Mao etc etc) in the structuring of their tyrannical regimes. Is that the jist of what you are saying or am I off the mark?

Not so much that established religions have influenced the structure they chose, more that they have similarities in how they structure themselves, I don't neccessarily imply causation. I am saying that hierarchical structures that involve the elements I have described should be regarded with extreme wariness due to what they have caused in the past.

Ultimately my point is in reference to this kind of argument:
Bill: I blame Islam for encouraging/justifying violent terrorism.
Job: That's like saying Atheism is responsible for the slaughter caused by Stalin!

Or

Job: Atheists are evil, because we've seen lots of famous atheists such as Stalin and Mao perform terrible acts.

The key issues is causation. Atheism does not cause Stalinesque tyranny, he just happened to be an atheist. We cannot say that a suicide bomber just happened to be a Muslim, his reasons for performing that act can be directly followed to his religious beliefs. When we talk about nightmarish organistions that can do such terrible things and convince their followers that it is just, and it is right, we almost always see those traits I've highlighted, and no one uses those traits more than religion.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Well, not that they personally were inspired by such things, but it is what allowed them to attain and maintain power, to inspire loyalty, obedience and complicity from their subjects and to appear as morally upright while doing so. In reference to a quote earlier, these are the things needed for otherwise good people to be a party to horrendous deeds.

I get what you're saying. But these men had to have certain skills to sell their ideas. Hitler gained loyalty and support from his propaganda rallies; the man could whip up a frenzy of emotions among the people at will. There were a number of reasons why these type of men were able to get otherwise good people to be a party to their horrendous deeds.

Zillah wrote: »

Ultimately my point is in reference to this kind of argument:
Bill: I blame Islam for encouraging/justifying violent terrorism.
Job: That's like saying Atheism is responsible for the slaughter caused by Stalin!

Or

Job: Atheists are evil, because we've seen lots of famous atheists such as Stalin and Mao perform terrible acts.

I'd be of the same line of thinking, always have been.

Zillah wrote: »

The key issues is causation. Atheism does not cause Stalinesque tyranny, he just happened to be an atheist. We cannot say that a suicide bomber just happened to be a Muslim, his reasons for performing that act can be directly followed to his religious beliefs. When we talk about nightmarish organistions that can do such terrible things and convince their followers that it is just, and it is right, we almost always see those traits I've highlighted, and no one uses those traits more than religion.

This is the issue with fundamentalism though. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists/fundamentalists. So how come a minority of people have been persuaded to commit such horrible acts in the name of their religion? The key word is persuaded. These extremists, this minority within a religion, have been brainwashed by opportunistic men; men who use religion as their tool for their agendas. I've heard the metaphor of the loaded gun before; but surely the gun is the man who is in control? The bullets? Whatever the resources he has at his disposal to further his agenda. In such circumstances I don't think it is fair to call religion a causal link; it has no choice in how it is used by these men in control.

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

This is the issue with fundamentalism though. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists/fundamentalists. So how come a minority of people have been persuaded to commit such horrible acts in the name of their religion? The key word is persuaded. These extremists, this minority within a religion, have been brainwashed by opportunistic men; men who use religion as their tool for their agendas. I've heard the metaphor of the loaded gun before; but surely the gun is the man who is in control? The bullets? Whatever the resources he has at his disposal to further his agenda. In such circumstances I don't think it is fair to call religion a causal link; it has no choice in how it is used by these men in control.

This is a perfect example. These poor men have made themselves vulnerable to such manipulations due to the principles of their religious society.

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates: The Koran dictates morality and is described as being final and complete, the very definition of rigid. The laws dictated in the Koran are not inspired by notions of respect for human rights, empathy or human dignity...they are based upon nothing more than supreme authority.
- Authority driven leadership: The most respected people in the Islamic world are those who are seen to represent Allah. In many cases they are not only the priests but also the judges in the courts and the final political authority. For example, contrary to popular opinion Ahmadinejad is not the top man is Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, described as the Supreme Leader.
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility: Islam is submission. To Allah, his teachings, his book, his laws and his earthly representatives.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

This is a perfect example. These poor men have made themselves vulnerable to such manipulations due to the principles of their religious society.

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates: The Koran dictates morality and is described as being final and complete, the very definition of rigid. The laws dictated in the Koran are not inspired by notions of respect for human rights, empathy or human dignity...they are based upon nothing more than supreme authority.
- Authority driven leadership: The most respected people in the Islamic world are those who are seen to represent Allah. In many cases they are not only the priests but also the judges in the courts and the final political authority. For example, contrary to popular opinion Ahmadinejad is not the top man is Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, described as the Supreme Leader.
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility: Islam is submission. To Allah, his teachings, his book, his laws and his earthly representatives.

Why is it though that only a minority are committed to declaring a Jihad on the West?

Zillah

Only a minority of them are angry enough I suppose. I never claimed that Islam causes all who follow it to do such things, merely that we should ackowledge the role it has played in those who do.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Only a minority of them are angry enough I suppose. I never claimed that Islam causes all who follow it to do such things, merely that we should ackowledge the role it has played in those who do.

That's what I'm getting at mate. Why are these guys so angry? Because they are being brainwashed and manipulated. It's why I'm so weary of attributing levels of blame to religion when it come to these crimes; there are men in powerful positions and they will use religion however they see fit.

I think I'll leave it there man, I want to leave with a bit of credit before you break me down.:p:pac:

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's what I'm getting at mate. Why are these guys so angry? Because they are being brainwashed and manipulated.

I meant angry at the West for blowing up their homes and families. But yes, I would describe the brainwashing/manipulation as part of it. Rather than being an alternative explanation to mine, I think it's inextricably integrated. There are only so many ways to make people accept authority driven leadership, rigid rules from a Holy Book and to abdicate their sense of responsibility.

I think I'll leave it there man, I want to leave with a bit of credit before you break me down.:p:pac:

No quarter!

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

I meant angry at the West for blowing up their homes and families.

I think that there is your Causal link right there. Now due to my ignorance of Muslim doctrine, I'll convert these people to Christianity for the sake of my point.

If a Christian nation was being thrown into such turmoil, but they had the morality as given through Christ, what could they do to stop it? The ones who held to Christs teachings would certainly not go blowing up buses and planes etc. However, if there were people who were so frustrated etc, that they weanted to get violent againt such oppression, how could they get people to support them? The people had a morality that wouldn't allow it. These people would not listen to a man who said '*&%* the bible, lets blow these people up'. Now these people, who feel they are under such duress, would probably welcome such vengeance, yet their religious views keep them from acting. However, if some clever folk come to them and 'show them' that their religion does in 'fact' justify such action, they can let go of this barrier keeping them from vengeance. These people are vulnerable to such things, as they probably desire this vengeance.

One 'could' go as far as to say, that such religion actually keeps more people from carrying out such things than if there was no religion. If there was no religion, it could possibly be easier for people to justify their actions also. I would say in such a moral vacum, people like Stalin or Mao could pretty much dictate how it goes down as it can come down to 'its us or them'.

IMO, an honest assesment of this matter shows that religion at worst, is the same as any form of governance. It can be abused. What it comes down to IMO, is that people are responsible for their own behaviour. What leads them to their decisions can be bad or good, but ultimately they are the ones that make them.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

I think that there is your Causal link right there.

Certainly it's a large part of it. Once again I think you're under estimating the religious element though.

These people would not listen to a man who said '*&%* the bible, lets blow these people up'.

See, that's my point, he doesn't need to go "Fuck the Bible", all he needs to do is go "Hey let's read the Bible!" and there it is in black and white, whole stories of mindless, unthinkable genocidal slaughter done in the name of God.

That's the problem with using horrible ancient books as a guideline for morality. I think it would be great if Christians dismissed the Bible and just created a new moral framework based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, but because it's a religion they can't because it's the word of God.

But I will concede that Christianity is not particularly vulnerable to such things, and like I said at the start, any given Christian could be the nicest person in the world, but it encourages submission to external sources for morality based purely on authority.

However, if some clever folk come to them and 'show them' that their religion does in 'fact' justify such action, they can let go of this barrier keeping them from vengeance. These people are vulnerable to such things, as they probably desire this vengeance.

Exactly. They are vulnerable because they're angry, but they're also vulnerable because they base their whole worldview on what other people have told them (be it the original authors of the Bible or the priest in the Church).

If there was no religion, it could possibly be easier for people to justify their actions also. I would say in such a moral vacum, people like Stalin or Mao could pretty much dictate how it goes down as it can come down to 'its us or them'.

Did you mean to imply that without religion there is no morality?

IMO, an honest assesment of this matter shows that religion at worst, is the same as any form of governance. It can be abused. What it comes down to IMO, is that people are responsible for their own behaviour. What leads them to their decisions can be bad or good, but ultimately they are the ones that make them.

I disagree. Other forms of governance such as Democracy encourage individual responsibility and put checks and balances on the power of the leadership. Religion does not. Religion invariable requires people to submit to a higher authority, and that higher authority apparently only communicates through other people, so religion essentially boils down to people abrogating their moral standards to the whims and interpretations of other people. Like Stalin, or the Pope. Therein lies the fatal weakness.

midlandsmissus

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Handsome Bob

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Ha ha, I'm glad someone said it.:D

lostexpectation

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

pH

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!!

Absolutely hilarious - candidate for post of the year, as perhaps a single, double or possibly even a triple entendre!

More!

midlandsmissus

pH wrote: »

Absolutely hilarious - candidate for post of the year, as perhaps a single, double or possibly even a triple entendre!

More!

And the best thing is - I didnt mean to do any of them!

The Mad Hatter

lostexpectation wrote: »

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

Good point - to be perfectly honest, I think nationalism is a much bigger problem than religion (though I admit that religion is a symptom of nationalism).

stevencarrwork

Almost all religions forbid the killing of innocent lpeople

Of course, Jesus said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone', emphasising that everybody is guilty of something.

lostexpectation

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Good point - to be perfectly honest, I think nationalism is a much bigger problem than religion (though I admit that religion is a symptom of nationalism).

not a symptom as much, religion is manipulated by nationalist, its about territory and resource.

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

Nationalism is indeed an awful thing, but you're overstating it's importance. The 9/11 hijackers came from many different nations, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. Also, here's an out take from Bin Laden's "Letter to America":

Osama Bin Laden wrote:

..you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

...that ultra-nationalistic fool! ^_^

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Media student

robindch

lostexpectation wrote: »

not a symptom as much, religion is manipulated by nationalist, its about territory and resource.

It's a bit more subtle than that -- state administrations frequently pay money to religions so that the religions legitimize the state administrations to the population whom the administrations control.

Religion can be thought of as a narrow, uncivic nationalism of the mind, rather than of territory.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Certainly it's a large part of it. Once again I think you're under estimating the religious element though.

What needs to be asked i suppose, is would it happen without religion? When Israel came to town, were the Arab league binded by religion, or p!ssed off at Israels behaviour? Is it religion that caused the Arab worlds hatread of America or was it America's involvement with Israel? IMO, its the latter, and religion is the thing that gave them a common identity. religion is also what gave them identity to people around the world also. 'Sympathise with our Palestinian brothers' etc. Certainly there's religious involvement, but I'd still stop short of it being Causal.

See, that's my point, he doesn't need to go "Fuck the Bible", all he needs to do is go "Hey let's read the Bible!" and there it is in black and white, whole stories of mindless, unthinkable genocidal slaughter done in the name of God.

And thats why its a personal responsability. David Koresh used the bible, Fred Phelps uses it etc etc. Yet, they only get a minority to walk with them. Why is that? Why is it that most Christians see that its nonsense? Yet on the basis that some people are fooled by some charlaton, we should say that the bible is responsible? IMO, its still not a causal link. The causal link is the cult leader. The guy abusing his status amongst a group of people.

That's the problem with using horrible ancient books as a guideline for morality. I think it would be great if Christians dismissed the Bible and just created a new moral framework based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, but because it's a religion they can't because it's the word of God.

rhetoric aside, 'Christians' do have a moral framework based on Jesus' example. An example which included respecting the prophets and messangers of previous generations. In light of christ and in light of the Gentile age, we no longer have God singling out a nation as his own, so there can't be a call to arms etc. We look at the old in light of the new. Thats the christian way. Unfortunately naive, vulnerable, stupid, wicked or ignorant people can be decieved by clever conmen. Any Christian worth their salt would smell a rat in the phelps compound for example.

Christianity encourages submission to external sources for morality based purely on authority.

Which is only a bad thing when the guide is wrong. Like the Good parent/bad parent example I gave to Wicknight. But we know where that discussion could take us:)

Exactly. They are vulnerable because they're angry, but they're also vulnerable because they base their whole worldview on what other people have told them (be it the original authors of the Bible or the priest in the Church).

But i don't think you are looking at the bigger pic tbh. I certainly believe that everyone must hold onto their independance of mind. In the world of religion I sadly concede that this is an issue. There are plenty that like to rush to give their faith to someone else to take care of. Its a bit like an abdication of responsability IMO. However, there is another view that could be held. That being what I mentioned earlier: That maybe religion has actually 'held back 'alot more people from committing attrocities. While some allow themselves be manipulated because of their own desire for vengeance, some maybe stick to a more moderate view in spite of their desire for vengeance. From my own experience, my faith has kept me from violent confrontation. I am shall we say, a well built chap:) and in school would rarely back away from a fight. Even now, if confronted by some trouble maker, my first instinct is to kick his @ass (internet hardman alert:)). However, I act against this instinct and recall the example of the person I call King, namely Jesus Christ.

Did you mean to imply that without religion there is no morality?

Certainly not, but like my point above tries to explain, if i was an atheist i'd have little reason to go against my instincts when it comes to confrontation.

I disagree. Other forms of governance such as Democracy encourage individual responsibility

Believe it or not, thats what Christ encourages too. His law of love free's us from rigid rules. When the apostles picked wheat on the sabath to eat, the pharisee's lambasted him. He brought up the case of King David feeding his men with the produce at the temple when it was needed. His message is one of motivation, namely that love should be our motivation. Rahab, a gentile, was declared righteous after she lied to enemy soldiers about the whereabouts of Israeli spies. Why? She lied, an act which God says Satan his enemy is the father of. But her motivation was righteous.

and put checks and balances on the power of the leadership. Religion does not. Religion invariable requires people to submit to a higher authority, and that higher authority apparently only communicates through other people, so religion essentially boils down to people abrogating their moral standards to the whims and interpretations of other people. Like Stalin, or the Pope. Therein lies the fatal weakness.

I agree that to give over your concience to such leaders is very unwise. With something like Christianity though, IMO, you can see whats on offer from the outset. If you then decide that Popes etc don't mean anything, then you cut out the danger of being manipulated by charismatic abusers of power.