Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Christian Tolerance
Options
Comments
-
I think Pat Robertson's views are extreme, and I in no way share them, but no, I don't think that equates to hatred.
For example, he compares homosexuals to murderers. Once again, I disagree, but the point is that I don't hate murderers - nor do I think God hates them.
He calls it an abomination and equates it to terrorism.
Come on PDN, what your doing is semantical and you know it. He hates homosexuals and he thinks God does too. That is very clear from his quotes.Yes. That does not mean that nothing bad was ever done in the name of Christianity. But it has brought us to a point now where we live in a tolerant society, rather than living in fear of being murdered for daring to disagree with the local despot.
I completely disagree with you here. I am arguing that our arrival at a tolerant society, a 'better' society did not depend on Christianity. That if you exchanged Christianity for any number of religions it wouldn't have made much of a difference to where we arrived.Anything good in western society is, in your opinion, nothing to do with Christianity. Everything bad is the fault of Christianity. Do you not see that you are coming across as being incredibly closed minded.
Come on you know I didn't say that. I think many Christians have done good in the name of Christianity and Christianity has helped some people to improve through its teaching but I strongly protest that it is anything special within Christianity that has caused this.
I strongly believe that if one replaced Christianity with any number of religions we would have a similar result, or even a better result imo if it was for example Buddhism which took Christianity's place.I think my position is much more reasonable - to acknowledge that good and bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, but that overall the influence of Christianity on culture has been beneficial, particularly when compared to societies that lacked that influence.
And I am asking you to show me examples of this improvement of society, of this tolerance. Not examples of where we are but examples of how we got here and how Christianity supposedly helped us get here.
I think we can both agree that Christianity did not help us arrive at tolerance towards homosexuality. That tolerance to homosexuality was in fact much better before Christianity arrived.After Christianity came along human nature did not change, but life arguably became slightly less brutish and short for most people.
Than argue it. Because I'm not convinced.Am I supposed to be sorry that this practice was not as tolerated by Christianity as it was under the Romans or under many pagan societies. The same 'intolerance' that restricted homosexual behaviour also restricted the widespread rape of children (and, due to recent Irish history, we wish to God such child rape had been eradicated forever).
You don't think Christianity is a wee bit guilty in this regard ?0 -
Because you don't need to be a genius to spot the difference between what is ceremonial and what is moral.
Well in fairness this distinction is not found in the Old Testament itself, it is something Christians added after the fact (and after Jesus), and a distinction that Jews themselves reject (you will often here Jews write that all of God's laws are moral laws)0 -
Well in fairness this distinction is not found in the Old Testament itself, it is something Christians added after the fact (and after Jesus), and a distinction that Jews themselves reject (you will often here Jews write that all of God's laws are moral laws)
And, in fairness, this is the Christianity forum where we discuss Christian issues and refer to the Christian Bible (both Old and New Testaments).
If you want to discuss Judaism then by all means petition boards.ie to establish a Judaism forum - a proposal I would gladly support.0 -
No, I am not being semantical. The Christian position is that we should hate sin, but love the sinner.He calls it an abomination and equates it to terrorism.
Come on PDN, what your doing is semantical and you know it. He hates homosexuals and he thinks God does too. That is very clear from his quotes.
I hate child abuse and terrorism, but I can honestly say I do not hate any child abuser or terrorists. I may feel horror and pity - but not hate.
Fred Phelps makes the claim that God hates homosexuals. AFAIK Pat Robertson has not made such a claim. (Even though I find his views extreme and wacky).
And you are entitled to indulge in such a belief, even if it is devoid of evidence. But just coming in here and keeping repeating your belief won't make it any more valid.I completely disagree with you here. I am arguing that our arrival at a tolerant society, a 'better' society did not depend on Christianity. That if you exchanged Christianity for any number of religions it wouldn't have made much of a difference to where we arrived.
Read a few history books. Read about the establishment of the universities. Read about the establishment of hospitals by monastic orders. Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.And I am asking you to show me examples of this improvement of society, of this tolerance. Not examples of where we are but examples of how we got here and how Christianity supposedly helped us get here.
Of course you will read about atrocities and crusades in the same books, just as non-European histories will tell you about unspeakable tortures, genocides, and monstrosities such as the caste system. But the trends in history are clear to those who genuinely seek to understand rather than grind an ideological axe.
I'm getting heartily sick of your muppetry.You don't think Christianity is a wee bit guilty in this regard ?
I have said a dozen times recently that those who claimed to be Christians have been guilty of all kinds of crimes and atrocities. How many times do I have to say that before you hear it and stop implying that I ever claim otherwise?
Yes, some of those who profess Christianity have been more than a wee bit guilty of perpetrating child rape. How many times do you want me to state that? Five? Ten? A hundred?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I'm getting heartily sick of your muppetry.
All he did was raise a valid point0 -
All he did was raise a valid point
It's not a valid point when a conversation goes like this:
PDN: Of course people professing Christianity have done bad things.
Monosharp: But you have to admit Christians did x bad thing 500 years ago.
PDN: Yes, that's right, I think we should recognise both the good things and the bad things.
Monosharp: But what about y bad thing in bongobongoland?
PDN: Yes, I've already said we should recognise and acknowledge the bad things done in the name of Christianity.
Monosharp: You don't think Christianity is a wee bit at fault?
Cue facepalm.0 -
No, I am not being semantical. The Christian position is that we should hate sin, but love the sinner.
So you believe Robertson doesn't hate homosexuals ? Just their 'crimes' ?And you are entitled to indulge in such a belief, even if it is devoid of evidence. But just coming in here and keeping repeating your belief won't make it any more valid.
I am the one giving evidence to the contrary, you are the one who is just constantly repeating yourself about 'Christianity made society better over time' without giving any evidence for it.
My argument in my last post was not that Christianity did bad thing X, it was that Christianity did not improve tolerance for homosexuals, they made it far worse.Read a few history books. Read about the establishment of the universities.
I talked about this with you before and you have given no proof as to why Christianity was necessary for the establishment of universities.Read about the establishment of hospitals by monastic orders.
Christianity was not necessary.Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.
And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.0 -
I don't believe that their activities are crimes. :rolleyes:So you believe Robertson doesn't hate homosexuals ? Just their 'crimes' ?
No, while Robertson is an intolerant fruitcake, I don't think he does hate homosexuals.
Your denial of the facts is up to you. I'm bored with pointing out the same facts to you again and again. Since you just refuse to listen I don't think there's much point, is there?I am the one giving evidence to the contrary, you are the one who is just constantly repeating yourself about 'Christianity made society better over time' without giving any evidence for it.
I think you are deliberately being obtuse. I have stated several times that the point is not whether Christianity was necessary to establish the universities, but that it was Christians who did establish the universities.I talked about this with you before and you have given no proof as to why Christianity was necessary for the establishment of universities.
Nobody said it was necessary. What I said was that monastic orders founded the hospitals. We are not discussing whether it was necessary - so why do you keep trying to derail your own thread?Christianity was not necessary.
The question is whether Christianity, over a long period of time, promoted tolerance or intolerance, not whether it was necessary for tolerance or intolerance.
And, yet again, no-one has argued that the religion in question had to be Christianity. You started a thread, in the Christianity forum, about what Christianity did or didn't do - not what other religions might have done.And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.0 -
I'm not sure how your "after the fact" hypothesis even remotely shows Christian intolerance.
And none of these things require the religion in question to be Christianity. It could just as easily have been Buddhism or Hindu.Read about how the Reformation led to pluralist societies where diversity of opinion was not only tolerated but welcomed. Read about how religious nonconformists fought for the separation of Church and State. Read about the Quakers. Read about how the Salvation Army and the early Methodists worked to establish trade unions.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't believe that their activities are crimes.
He does.No, while Robertson is an intolerant fruitcake, I don't think he does hate homosexuals.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think the majority of people will agree with me.Your denial of the facts is up to you. I'm bored with pointing out the same facts to you again and again. Since you just refuse to listen I don't think there's much point, is there?
You haven't given me any.
You have general sweeping statements about Christianity's contributions to society throughout history as if our rationality, our tolerance and other things depended on the Christian religion and you have given no reason why.
You might as well say our societies rationality is a result of using the English language since it has been prevalent in much of western society.I think you are deliberately being obtuse. I have stated several times that the point is not whether Christianity was necessary to establish the universities, but that it was Christians who did establish the universities.
In Europe. In other parts of the world it was other people.Nobody said it was necessary. What I said was that monastic orders founded the hospitals. We are not discussing whether it was necessary - so why do you keep trying to derail your own thread?
I am sure you said that Christianity was necessary for the society we have today regarding rational thought, tolerance etc. Am I mistaken ?The question is whether Christianity, over a long period of time, promoted tolerance or intolerance, not whether it was necessary for tolerance or intolerance.
And I'd argue it promoted intolerance as has just been pointed out in the case of attitudes towards homosexuality.0 -
chozometroid wrote: »I'm not sure how your "after the fact" hypothesis even remotely shows Christian intolerance.
Attitudes towards homosexuality were much more tolerant before Christianity.
Attitudes were much more intolerant during the majority of Christian influence in Europe then they were beforehand.0 -
Just a thought...I personally think that perhaps the reason why homosexuality was so frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions may have a Darwinian explanation. If you have a relatively small tribe and wish to survive then you want as many people in the tribe as possible. Homosexual relations don't lead to more tribes people,so it's deletarious to the growth and survival of the small tribe. Hence religious laws prohibiting it.
Now the Romans and Greeks were not desert tribes and their civilisation was far more stable and large than the emerging religious tribes,so the possibility of being eradicated was far less than the Jews,so they could afford to tolerate gay relations. I could be way off,but I can't help feel there's some truth in my musings.0 -
Just a thought...I personally think that perhaps the reason why homosexuality was so frowned upon by the Abrahamic religions may have a Darwinian explanation. If you have a relatively small tribe and wish to survive then you want as many people in the tribe as possible. Homosexual relations don't lead to more tribes people,so it's deletarious to the growth and survival of the small tribe. Hence religious laws prohibiting it.
Now the Romans and Greeks were not desert tribes and their civilisation was far more stable and large than the emerging religious tribes,so the possibility of being eradicated was far less than the Jews,so they could afford to tolerate gay relations. I could be way off,but I can't help feel there's some truth in my musings.
Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?0 -
Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?
I know very little about LGBT rights in communist countries,bar the earlier posts in this thread. Although not atheist, I can see how there could be a similiar explanation for homophobia in the third Reich. There was an obsession with tribalism in Nazi Germany and with that came all sorts of harsh and extreme measures to ensure the survival and prosperity of the Aryan tribe, sterilisation,genocide, involuntary euthanasia (the T-4 programme.) and of course violent surpression of gay relations were also a measure.
So we can see the connection, when anything threatens the survival of our tribe,and to an even greater extent our immediate family and oneself, we become aggressive to all threats,whether it be liberating ones nation from imperialism,racism,self defence or homophobia-it all comes down to the survival of the tribe,the imperitive of passing on ones DNA and the selfish gene.
Ironically Christianity was the opposiate of Judaism,regarding tribalism,it was inclusive and universal. Though Christians have done a great job of destroying the intent of its founder by creating a multitude of sects and thus encouraging tribalism via nit picking at different interpretations and missing the more important core teachings. Pehaps it's just human nature. Many Buddhist sects seem to teach the exact opposiate of what the original Buddha taught. I have no regard for organised religion due to this.0 -
Tolerance means: "Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing"Homosexuality, just one example where theres a huge intolerance shown by the Christian religion. Whereas before Christianity it was quite accepted or at least not condemned.
He does not mean "agreeing with the beliefs, practices, or traits of others"
Having an opinion about anything (inc homosexuality) is not "intolerant"...
What makes an opinion "intolerant" is what you do with the opinion.
So, thinking that prostitution is wrong and stoning one to death is intolerant.
And when Jesus saved that woman being stoned with the words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", did that mean he thought prostitution was okay?
And was Jesus intolerant because after he saved her, he said: "go, and sin no more".0 -
After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".
And this is coming from a 14 year old.
And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP0 -
Family Guy and American Dad do not represent Christianity.After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".
And this is coming from a 14 year old.
And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP0 -
After scanning through the topic, I'm just gonna jump in.
I hate the way Christianity is against homosexuality. It's not a choice if you're homosexual or not, I don't think my friend (who is homosexual) even wants to like boys, but he can't help it =\ and becuase of this, he's constantly being bullied at school because he's "gay". With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".
And this is coming from a 14 year old.
And oh yeah, sorry if I'm interrupting an argument, just scanned through the topic xP
Stewie is gay...
Anyway FG and American Dad take the piss out of everyone, so i wouldnt use that as a yardstick for who they're "against" you can add black people, the disabled, women, catholics, jews, nazis, giant chickens, greased up deaf guys and star wars characters to their targets, also Seth McFarlane (their creator) is a massive gay rights supporter so he clearly doesnt hate homosexuals, quoted from the man himself about gay marriage:
"Why is it that Johnny Spaghetti Stain in ****ing Georgia can knock a woman up, legally be married to her, and then beat the **** out of her, but these two intelligent, sophisticated writers who have been together for 20 years can't get married?"0 -
Interesting. Would you say that the same explanation could account for the extreme homophobia against gays under regimes that are officially atheist?
For example ?
Are you going to mention China here ? Because I already made an argument against your Chinese comment which you haven't replied to.
As for Stalin, well he was against just about everyone, even those who were on his side.0 -
Advertisement
-
Saint Ruth wrote: »And when Jesus saved that woman being stoned with the words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", did that mean he thought prostitution was okay?
And was Jesus intolerant because after he saved her, he said: "go, and sin no more".
What Jesus did or didn't do is almost never the same as what Christians do or don't do.
I never said Jesus was intolerant etc, I said Christianity is.0 -
For example ?
Are you going to mention China here ? Because I already made an argument against your Chinese comment which you haven't replied to.
As for Stalin, well he was against just about everyone, even those who were on his side.
Albania. Homosexuality illegal under the officially atheist regime. Decriminalised in 1995.
Cuba. Under Batista homosexuality was legal. Criminalised under Castro. Gays were subjected to arrest without trial and put in labor camps. Sodomy was decriminalised in 1979, but replaced it wiith a statute by which you could get a year in jail for "publicly flaunting a homosexual condition".
Vietnam. The Government still issues public announcements called homosexuality "a disease" and "a social evil".
China. Homosexuality was declared illegal under the old criminal code (17th Century - nothing to do with Christianity there) and remained so under the atheist regime of Mao. Active persecution of homosexuals intensified under Mao. Decriminalised in 1997, and declassified as a mental disease in 2002.
North Korea. Homosexuality not officiallly criminalised - but routinely condemned as "western decadence". And we all know what happpens to people in North Korea who are considered to be tainted by westerners.
Soviet Union. Homosexuality a criminal offence. Strongly denounced and put in labor camps.
Romania. Consensual gay acts in private were decriminalised in 1996.
The fact is that some of the most violent homophobia of the last century has been perpetuated by regimes that were officially atheist. Now, I am not drawing a corollary between their atheism and their homophobia (no more than with a thousand other extremely unpleasant traits charactewristic of officially atheist regimes). I am pointing out that homophobia is manifested in human nature in many guises.
I also think your entire argument about toleration in pre-Christian societies is specious. What was tolerated was not homosexuality as we know it today - two guys engaging in consensual sex or setting up house together. What was commonly tolerated was pederasty - where guys who lived an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle complete with wife and kids chose to supplement that by abusing and raping children. These children, once they reached marriageable age, then in turn became the abuser and similarly raped other young boys etc.
And, as we both know, there are still societies today where such behaviour continues without any public outcry.0 -
Albania. Homosexuality illegal under the officially atheist regime. Decriminalised in 1995.
Atheist regime ? You mean communist regime surely.
And would you kindly point out how this attitude was not due to the influence of Islam or Christianity on Albanian society ?Cuba. Under Batista homosexuality was legal. Criminalised under Castro. Gays were subjected to arrest without trial and put in labor camps. Sodomy was decriminalised in 1979, but replaced it wiith a statute by which you could get a year in jail for "publicly flaunting a homosexual condition".
That would be the Cuba which is 60% Catholic yes ? Under the leadership of a former Catholic yes ?
How do you define Cuba as an atheist regime ?Vietnam. The Government still issues public announcements called homosexuality "a disease" and "a social evil".
Oh and again, how is Vietnam an 'atheist' regime ? It is 50% Buddhist, 7% Catholic, protestants and a mixture of other religions.China. Homosexuality was declared illegal under the old criminal code (17th Century - nothing to do with Christianity there) and remained so under the atheist regime of Mao. Active persecution of homosexuals intensified under Mao. Decriminalised in 1997, and declassified as a mental disease in 2002.
How is China an atheist state ?North Korea. Homosexuality not officiallly criminalised - but routinely condemned as "western decadence". And we all know what happpens to people in North Korea who are considered to be tainted by westerners.
North Korea is the most religious country in the world, by far.Soviet Union. Homosexuality a criminal offence. Strongly denounced and put in labor camps.
man-on-man homosexuality was a criminal offence under Stalin.
The Soviet Union was an atheist regime ?The fact is that some of the most violent homophobia of the last century has been perpetuated by regimes that were officially atheist. Now, I am not drawing a corollary between their atheism and their homophobia (no more than with a thousand other extremely unpleasant traits charactewristic of officially atheist regimes). I am pointing out that homophobia is manifested in human nature in many guises.
You have given incorrect information for almost all of the regimes above. How do you define a state as been an 'atheist' regime ? The leader must be atheist ? The state must be officially secular ? How ?I also think your entire argument about toleration in pre-Christian societies is specious. What was tolerated was not homosexuality as we know it today - two guys engaging in consensual sex or setting up house together. What was commonly tolerated was pederasty - where guys who lived an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle complete with wife and kids chose to supplement that by abusing and raping children. These children, once they reached marriageable age, then in turn became the abuser and similarly raped other young boys etc.
Your view of pederasty is not in line with what historians considered it to be.And, as we both know, there are still societies today where such behaviour continues without any public outcry.
And as you know the examples you have given above are examples of religious intolerance. None of the states you mentioned could be classified as atheist with the possible exception of the Soviet Union.
You have given me examples for my argument.0 -
The two families are Christian.chozometroid wrote: »Family Guy and American Dad do not represent Christianity.
@krudler: point taken that they mock pretty much everything, but state your source that Stewie is gay.
Monosharp: China is an atheist country because it disallows religious practise.0 -
Monosharp: China is an atheist country because it disallows religious practise.
No it doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China0 -
-
The two families are Christian.
@krudler: point taken that they mock pretty much everything, but state your source that Stewie is gay.
Monosharp: China is an atheist country because it disallows religious practise.
OT but, watch the show? they say it in the episode where he finds his future older self that he grew up to be a gay man,add to that the hundreds of references to his sexuality over the years?0 -
Atheist regime ? You mean communist regime surely. .
"The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. By May 1967, religious institutions had relinquished all 2,169 churches, mosques, cloisters, and shrines, many of which were converted into cultural centers for young people. Many Muslim imams and Orthodox priests renounced their "parasitic" past. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture. As the literary monthly "Nëndori" reported the event, the youth had thus "created the first atheist nation in the world."
From year 1967 to the end of the totalitarian regime, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never indoctrinated into, nor taught about religion, so they grew up to become atheists.
Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
So now you're going to argue that anything wrong committed by atheists is really the fault of the influence of Christians or Muslims? Welcome to la-la Land!And would you kindly point out how this attitude was not due to the influence of Islam or Christianity on Albanian society ?That would be the Cuba which is 60% Catholic yes ? Under the leadership of a former Catholic yes ?
How do you define Cuba as an atheist regime ?
"Originally more tolerant of religion, after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a "secular state" rather than atheistic but, as a practical matter, it continues to harshly repress believers. Since the 1960s, its prisons have been filled with clergy and other faithful" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheismOh and again, how is Vietnam an 'atheist' regime ? It is 50% Buddhist, 7% Catholic, protestants and a mixture of other religions.
"One-tenth of officially atheist Vietnam's 82 million population is Catholic"
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/25/pope.vietnam/index.htmlHow is China an atheist state ?
The People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and since then the government has been officially atheist.[34][35] For much of its early history maintained a hostile attitude toward religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use.
In the early years of the People's Republic, religious belief or practice was often discouraged because it was regarded by the government as backward and superstitious and because some Communist leaders, ranging from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, had been critical of religious institutions. During the Cultural Revolution, religion was condemned as feudalistic and thousands of religious buildings were looted and destroyed.
This attitude, however, relaxed considerably in the late 1970s, with the end of the Cultural Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
North Korea's government not only compels state atheism but also exercises total Orwellian control over its citizens, mandating a cult of personality around its leader such that dissidents are not only traitors but also heretics from the state's atheistic political religion. North Korea has been called the worlds most atheistic state.North Korea is the most religious country in the world, by far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as "gosateizm,[29] and was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state V. I. Lenin put it:man-on-man homosexuality was a criminal offence under Stalin.
The Soviet Union was an atheist regime ?
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[30]
Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. Within about a year of the revolution the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).[31]
In the 1920s and 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers. Atheism was propagated through schools, communist organizations (such as the Young Pioneer Organization), and the media. Though Lenin originally introduced the Gregorian calendar to the Soviets subsequent efforts to re-organise the week for the purposes of improving worker productivity with the introduction of the Soviet revolutionary calendar had a side-effect that a "holiday will seldom fall on Sunday"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
No, I don't think I have. I have cited sources.You have given incorrect information for almost all of the regimes above.
This is interesting, you've spent the last few days in denial, arguing with the standard historians' interpretation of the Church's role in the development of western civilisation - and now you suddenly want to cite historians as authority? Doesn't that seem a tad hypocritical?Your view of pederasty is not in line with what historians considered it to be.
So, monsharp, do you think it is acceptable for older men to sodomise 13 year old boys? Do you really want to argue that Christianity was wrong not to tolerate this practice which was accepted by the ancient Greeks?0 -
With the way today's society is going, I don't see a good future for homosexuals, becuase from evidence in most of today's teenage popular shows (I.E family guy, American dad), they're clearly against "gays".
I would say that such popular entertainment is much more biased against Christians than against gays.
When was the last time, if ever, that you saw a character in a TV show or movie who was a generally decent person who also happened to be a committed Christian? If say, on Law and Order, they portray someone as religious then you just know they're soon going to be exposed as a raving bigot who secretly killed their gay lover.
Btw, I frequently sit and watch Modern Family (featuring a gay couple) with a lesbian friend. We both laugh at the same jokes that major on attitudes toward homosexuality and neither of us have managed to get offended yet.0 -
Advertisement
-
So now you're going to argue that anything wrong committed by atheists is really the fault of the influence of Christians or Muslims? Welcome to la-la Land!
Regarding homosexuality ? Or regarding anti-religious practice ?
Because you yourself have given clear evidence that religious influence on western society has been stewing for such a long time that even 30 years of atheism is hardly going to eradicate social stigmas caused by it.
I am not religious and yet everyday I am battling with some kind of left over religiousness because it was bred into my culture, my society and into me for so long.
"Originally more tolerant of religion, after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba began arresting.... [/quote]
And yet the majority of Cubas population are Catholic."One-tenth of officially atheist Vietnam's 82 million population is Catholic"
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/25/pope.vietnam/index.html
You know as well as I do that Asians define 'religion' differently to us.
.wikipedia wrote:The majority of Vietnamese people classify themselves as non-religious, although they visit religious temples several times every year. Their everyday behaviours and attitudes are dictated by the synthesis of philosophies which can be traced from many religions, especially Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Those religions have been co-existing in the country for centuries and mixed perfectly with the Vietnamese tradition of worshiping their ancestors and national heroes. That special mix explains why the people there find it hard to say exactly which religion they belong to
Same. You know they view religion differently. Many Buddhists don't consider themselves part of a 'religion' in the way westerners do.wikipedia wrote:Most people report no organized religious affiliation; however, people with a belief in folk traditions and non-religious spiritual beliefs, such as ancestor veneration and feng shui, along with informal ties to local temples and unofficial house churches number in the hundreds of millions. The United States Department of State, in its annual report on International Religious Freedom,[37] gives possibly the most reliable statistics about organized religions. In 2007 it reported the following (citing the Government's 1997 report on Religious Freedom and 2005 White Paper on religion):[38]
Buddhists 8%. According to other sources at least 50% and possibly as high as 91%.[39][40]
Taoists, unknown as a percentage partly because it is fused along with Confucianism and Buddhism. According to some sources it's at least 30%.[41][42]
Muslims, 1.5%, with more than 45,000 Imams. Other estimates state at least 2%.
Christians, Protestants at least 2%. Catholics, about 1.5%. Total Christians according to 2008 different polls: 4%.
It should be noted, however, that statistics relating to Buddhism and religious Taoism are to some degree incomparable with statistics for Islam and Christianity. This is due to the traditional Chinese belief system which blends Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, so that a person who follows a traditional belief system would not necessarily identify him- or herself as either Buddhist or Taoist, despite attending Buddhist or Taoist places of worship.North Korea's government not only compels state atheism but also exercises total Orwellian control over its citizens, mandating a cult of personality around its leader such that dissidents are not only traitors but also heretics from the state's atheistic political religion. North Korea has been called the worlds most atheistic state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
North Korea's religion is the worship of the Great leader and the Dear leader.Despite these official religions, much more attention is paid to the personalities of the deceased "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung and today's "Dear Leader", his son Kim Jong-il. Their portraits are omnipresent in streets, schools, public buildings and all private homes. The ideological statements and scriptures produced by the two leaders are the main basis of education for both children and adults.[citation needed] The story of the Kims' descent is surrounded with mythology. Children in schools are taught that they came down from heaven, and were placed on the top of Mount Paektu, where they were transformed into human beings. At public events, songs are sung that depict the leaders as saviours of the country as well as of each individual citizen.[citation needed]
Came down from heaven, storks came down to earth to carry his body away, superhuman feats, total obedience.
Its absolutely a religion.No, I don't think I have. I have cited sources.
See above.This is interesting, you've spent the last few days in denial, arguing with the standard historians' interpretation of the Church's role in the development of western civilisation - and now you suddenly want to cite historians as authority? Doesn't that seem a tad hypocritical?
PDN, I never argued that christianity didn't have an influence on society. I argued that it was anything innate in christianity itself which gave us our rationality, tolerance etc.So, monsharp, do you think it is acceptable for older men to sodomise 13 year old boys? Do you really want to argue that Christianity was wrong not to tolerate this practice which was accepted by the ancient Greeks?
Of course I think its not acceptable. But homosexuality is quite acceptable and the church banned that too along with how many other things ?0
Advertisement