Religion ftw

Fighting Irish

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html

lostexpectation

you do know they fighting over land not religion.

Rev Hellfire

now now we can't let little things like the facts get in the way of our righteous fist shaking.

robindch

lostexpectation wrote: »

you do know they fighting over land not religion.

Each religion legitimates its own "right" to the land. The justification is much the same, whether you're a suicide bomber or F16 pilot in Gaza today, a crusader of 900 years ago, a suicide of Masada, or who knows what before that.

Remove the religion and the onionskin holybooks, the quack clerics and their self-aggrandizing claims to higher knowledge and lebensraum, the dark and bullshit deities, the headdresses and scarves, the curls and beards, the clasped hands, the squeezed eyes and tinpot piety, and the million other worn clan markers and suddenly people won't know who they should hate.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Each religion legitimates its own "right" to the land. The justification is much the same, whether you're a suicide bomber or F16 pilot in Gaza today, a crusader of 900 years ago, a suicide of Masada, or who knows what before that.

Remove the religion and the onionskin holybooks, the quack clerics and their self-aggrandizing claims to higher knowledge and lebensraum, the dark and bullshit deities, the headdresses and scarves, the curls and beards, the clasped hands, the squeezed eyes and tinpot piety, and the million other worn clan markers and suddenly people won't know who they should hate.

Does Christianity? I don't think we do argue that Christians should dominate the land of Israel, maybe once upon a time like during the Crusades this was the case, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Fanny Cradock

And you know this how, robin? Or are you happy enough to admit this is a faith based statement?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you know this how, robin? Or are you happy enough to admit this is a faith based statement?

If you'd like to debate the point seriously, instead of posting third-rate conflations that would embarrass a first-year sophist, then let me know.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Remove the religion and the onionskin holybooks, the quack clerics and their self-aggrandizing claims to higher knowledge and lebensraum, the dark and bullshit deities, the headdresses and scarves, the curls and beards, the clasped hands, the squeezed eyes and tinpot piety, and the million other worn clan markers and suddenly people won't know who they should hate.

Yes they will. History shows that they will know to hate 'running dogs of capitalism', Trotskyists, intellectuals, ethnic minorities etc.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Does Christianity? [...] maybe once upon a time like during the Crusades this was the case [...]

You're correct -- christianity gave it its best regional shot during the crusades, but that's long past and christianity, as far as I can make out, seems to be dying out in the region under the influence of the region's two dominant religions. Some places faster than others, and I suspect that Lebanon and Syria will be the last countries in the region with anything more than a superficial christian presence.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Yes they will. History shows that they will know to hate 'running dogs of capitalism', Trotskyists, intellectuals, ethnic minorities etc.

Do you reckon that Stalin wasn't a quack cleric with an holybook of his own, a self-aggrandizing claim to higher knowledge and a wish for more lebensraum?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Do you reckon that Stalin wasn't a quack cleric with an holybook of his own, a self-aggrandizing claim to higher knowledge and a wish for more lebensraum?

He certainly didn't have religion. Nor did Mao or Pol Pot. They took all the things away you mentioned but they were every bit as much, if not much more, efficient at generating hate than any religion.

I suspect you're playing the old "Communism is religion-like" card. Can you not see how intellectually dishonest that is?

Imagine if we used similar logic and applied it to groups of people other than the religious.

Argument: The English killed lots of people in Ireland. Therefore, if we removed all the English there would be no more fighting or oppression in the world.

Objection: But what about Hitler? He wasn't English?

Counterargument: Ah, but Hitler was like the English! Therefore he doesn't count as being unEnglish. Anyway, being unEnglish wasn't the cause of his violence, was it?

The simple fact is that people will hate other people for any number of reasons. All they need is a good excuse. It may be the colour of their skin, their nationality, their political affiliation, their religion, or whether they open their boiled eggs at the narrow end or the broad end.

Robin, I am now finely poised as to whether I should keep my sig line or should change it. I thought Matthew Parris had persuaded me to change it, but you are proving an effective argument for retaining it. I'll watch how this thread develops to see if you or Matthew best represent atheistic dogma.

Running Bing

robindch wrote: »

Remove the religion and the onionskin holybooks, the quack clerics and their self-aggrandizing claims to higher knowledge and lebensraum, the dark and bullshit deities, the headdresses and scarves, the curls and beards, the clasped hands, the squeezed eyes and tinpot piety, and the million other worn clan markers and suddenly people won't know who they should hate.

...and there will be peace and harmony for all?


Do you really believe that? Its in our nature to kill each other. Take away religion and we'll just find some other reason to fight....land, politics, economics. The idealistic view of an atheist utopia with no war or fighting is extremely naive.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You're correct -- christianity gave it its best regional shot during the crusades, but that's long past and christianity, as far as I can make out, seems to be dying out in the region under the influence of the region's two dominant religions. Some places faster than others, and I suspect that Lebanon and Syria will be the last countries in the region with anything more than a superficial christian presence.

Quite inaccurate considering the population of Christians in the State of Israel has doubled since 1948. As you said, Lebanon has a healthy population of Christians, and Syria also infact (10%), the same applies for other countries such as Egypt also (also 10%). You fail to factor in the fact that many people are afraid to come out as Christians in Islamic states due to apostasy laws. Christianity is alive in the Middle East, just not very open arguably.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

He certainly didn't have religion. Nor did Mao or Pol Pot. They took all the things away you mentioned but they were every bit as much, if not much more, efficient at generating hate than any religion. I suspect you're playing the old "Communism is religion-like" card. Can you not see how intellectually dishonest that is?

I can understand why you're upset to the point of calling me dishonest, but whether you like it or not, communism is/was just as much of a self-aggrandizing, exclusivist mass-movement as most religions are.

As you missed the point of the analogy, communism of course had its holybook and higher knowledge in the form of the writings of Marx and Engels, which all had to learn while the central dogma that the communist party and its leadership was the one true and noble cause was taken on faith and could not be questioned. Communism, incidentally, gave purpose and direction to a lot of people too -- it's one of the things that you hear quite often in the FSU these days.

But I'm amused that you use the silly if it's not religion, it'll be something else, ha, ha argument. That's a bit like saying that "well, officer, if I didn't kill him with the axe, he'd have died of old age eventually anyway". Very unconvincing and more than a little dishonest.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

If you'd like to debate the point seriously, instead of posting third-rate conflations that would embarrass a first-year sophist, then let me know.

Oh dear! I stuck a chord there. Admittedly I rather dictated two options.

1) Enlighten me as to how the dissolution of religion and faith in God(s) will suddenly mean we won't know who to hate (I note this still doesn't remove the hate, only the focus). As by way of concession I certainly agree that the world is better off without aggressive and territorial forms of polity such as Christendom.

2) Admit that you only believe this to be true.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Quite inaccurate considering the population of Christians in the State of Israel has doubled since 1948.

Yes, that's correct. At least it's superficially correct, since the doubling figure refers to the number of christians living in the jewish (non-arab) part of Israel. The overall percentage of christians though, when you include the arabs, paints quite a different picture, and it's declined from around 10% ninety years ago, to around 2% now. Which was my (accurate) point.

From here:

The Jewish Virtual Library wrote:

Historically, on the eve of World War I, the Christian population was about 70,000 - 10% of the population. Over the 20th century, while absolute numbers increased, the relative number of Christians declined. By 1947, on the eve of Israeli independence, the Christian population in Mandatory Palestine was 143,000 - 7% of the total population. 34,000 Christians remained within the borders of the State of Israel, less than 3% of the population. Today, within the borders of what was “Mandatory Palestine” — the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority — there is a total of 180,000 Christians, just over 2% of the total population.

For a good picture of the fading christian populations of the Middle East, have a read of From the Holy Mountain, by William Dalrymple (who's a christian, btw).

robindch

Babybing wrote: »

The idealistic view of an atheist utopia with no war or fighting is extremely naive.

The populations of Sweden, Denmark and Finland would beg to differ.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The populations of Sweden, Denmark and Finland would beg to differ.

Hang on, I thought secular countries weren't trying to peddle state atheism?

I thought they were aiming to be secular utopias, not atheist utopias. Although I'm not mad on the way that secularism is being argued as of late in states such as France and Turkey (extreme secularism), state atheism is pure horrific, and the record is testament to that. 100,000,000 died in the Soviet Russia in a century.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

1) Enlighten me as to how the dissolution of religion and faith in God(s) will suddenly mean we won't know who to hate

There, you're at it again -- unnecessary conflation! -- I was referring to religion as a mass-movement only, not to whether or not individual people believe that one deity or another exists. The two are quite separate social phenomena.

My beef is with politicized religion, the kind of thing that makes young men wrap themselves up in bombs and detonate themselves in cafes. Remove the people telling them that this is a good idea, and the religion which provides vague promises of an eternity with 72 virgins, an opposing religion which claims the same resources and the souls of the world, and you stand a good chance that your recruits will lose interest. Not all of them, but a substantial portion will.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Admit that you only believe this to be true.

I wouldn't write it in that tone if I believed it false

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

Does Christianity? I don't think we do argue that Christians should dominate the land of Israel, maybe once upon a time like during the Crusades this was the case, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Well, the Crusades did not arise out of an ideological belief that Christians should dominate Israel. They started because the new regime in 11th century Palestine began to attack European pilgrims to the Holy Land. Pilgrims had visited these places with little harrassment for centuries beforehand. It was all politics. It was a war that came out of a diplomatic incident.

robindch wrote: »

Do you reckon that Stalin wasn't a quack cleric with an holybook of his own, a self-aggrandizing claim to higher knowledge and a wish for more lebensraum?

No. I think the furthest you could go would be to call Marxism a "horizontal religion" as opposed to "vertical religions" like Christianity and Islam. AFAIK Albert Camus used these terms because Marxism appeared to put its faith in the goodness of humans beyond what they merited.

Stalin made no claims to higher knowledge, upholding an image of a political system and ideology firmly based in science rather than superstition and metaphysics.

Soviet colonisation and Russification of the Baltic States, and its other forms of colonisation were done for security: by dominating the countries that surrounded Russia, a defensive wall was formed. The Russification of these countries was to ensure that Moscow held a permanent grip on them. For the same reason, the British planted many settlers in Ireland in the 17th century. As we can see, this policy continues to work in the northeast of this island.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

state atheism is pure horrific, and the record is testament to that. 100,000,000 died in the Soviet Russia in a century.

Do you understand anything I wrote above?

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

The populations of Sweden, Denmark and Finland would beg to differ.

I don't think it's a coincidence that they not only peaceful and secular, but are also very prosperous countries.

I also think that their cultural development as nations was strongly influenced, if not dominated by the Protestant ethic, especially in the temperance movements of the 19th century. But that's probably another thread.

robindch wrote: »

My beef is with politicized religion, the kind of thing that makes young men wrap themselves up in bombs and detonate themselves in cafes. Remove the people telling them that this is a good idea, and the religion which provides vague promises of an eternity with 72 virgins, an opposing religion which claims the same resources and the souls of the world, and you stand a good chance that your recruits will lose interest.

I agree. Rejection of the politicising of religious authority was one of the reasons for the Reformation, especially the Radical Reformation.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Do you understand anything I wrote above?

Why would you claim that Sweden, Denmark, or Finland are "atheist" utopias, if you aren't implying that they are atheist states, by which point it would be perfectly reasonable to find a connection with state atheism.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

There, you're at it again -- unnecessary conflation! -- I was referring to religion as a mass-movement only, not to whether or not individual people believe that one deity or another exists. The two are quite separate social phenomena.

My beef is with politicized religion, the kind of thing that makes young men wrap themselves up in bombs and detonate themselves in cafes. Remove the people telling them that this is a good idea, and the religion which provides vague promises of an eternity with 72 virgins, an opposing religion which claims the same resources and the souls of the world, and you stand a good chance that your recruits will lose interest. Not all of them, but a substantial portion will.I wouldn't write it in that tone if I believed it false

Fair enough. However, the second paragraph of your first post seemed to me less like an irascible dig at politicised religion and about more a dig at religion itself - including it's adherents.