I see a lot of threads here blaming religion...

[Lerkfish]

blaming religion for all the world's ills, instead of human nature.
I would hope that we are all smarter than that.
However, I continue to be proven wrong.

Men can do evil. period. They will use whatever is available to commit evil. Religion is available. So is blind nationalism. So is homophobia, racial hatred, false flag operations, greed and corruption.

Men can also do good. period. They will use whatever is avalable to do good. Religion is available. So is patriotism. So is compassion, tolerance, integrity and justice.

The tools are the same or similar. What matters is what you intend to do with them. I can use a hammer and saw to make a guillotine or a water wheel.

Would you burn a hammer because someone used it to make a gallows?

in reading down the list of threads in this forum, which I do on occasion, I note that we spend a great deal more time browbeating religion instead of browbeating ourselves.

We are never going to solve the problem is we only address one facet of it. The problem is the tendency of Man to use war and other unsavory means to achieve power at the expense of others. That manifests itself no matter which, or if any, religion is present in the society.

[trotsky]

1. Religion is a tool unlike the others.

Religion is used to teach that there is an ultimate truth. By themselves, patriotism, nationalism, etc. cannot do that. They cannot promise that something is cosmically-sanctioned, decreed by unearthly powers.

Religion has its place. It can bring peace and positive motivation to some people.

But let's not fool ourselves, its potential for abuse is unlike anything else.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

[okasha]

2. Religion certainly seems to inspire great leaps of illogic

in those who are intolerant of it. FDR interned the Nisei because of religion, did he? I think not.

[Lerkfish]

4. I think the problem is the human animal, unfortunately.

because He can shape the world around him to his will, the only limitation is his strength or reach and his own moral view. If he has no such limitation, for a time he will prevail and commit all sorts of atrocities until society itself rises up and becomes his limiter.

now, the real question is: how do we change the nature of man? Certainly not a we are doing now: we devote massive amounts of resources to warfare and reward those who excel at it. (if we use a genetic analogy) Over the centuries, this has created a default breeding program to reinforce the war gene tendency in those who are accorded the power to shape society around them. Those who sue for peace are systematically bred out of the species by isolation, persecution and elimination.

Our muscles of diplomacy have atrophied. Our compassion, as a species, is vestigial. We are witnessing the last stage of the evolution of WarMan.

this is a much larger issue than merely religion.

[trotsky]

7. Please address my points.

Thanks.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. I have a different take on it

I think testosterone is more powerful than religion. The need for territory is (in my opinion) a hormonal thing and resonsible for many conflicts. It also leads to abuses against women and weaker people. It leads to a need for power in some. It is a definite catalyst for violent behavior.

Am I blaming all the world's ills on men? Not completely. Women can and have been complicit, raising boys to be good little soldiers and basking in the pride of being the partner to an alpha male. I'm just saying that our basic nature is, because of our physical bodies, prone to these things.

I think religions are more an extension of tribalism than anything else. Just like gangs. We don't have small tribes anymore and we all like pulling together with a group of like-minded individuals. Religion formalizes their commonalities, gives them a framework. Can they then go on to do dastardly deeds in the name of their common beliefs? You bet. But it is only one way we destroy ourselves. It isn't the whole enchilada.

[kwassa]

11. Religion is in no way unique to be abused

trotsky:

"Religion is used to teach that there is an ultimate truth. By themselves, patriotism, nationalism, etc. cannot do that."

Oh, they absolutely can do that. History is replete with many examples. All the communist regimes were ultimate-truth regimes, for instance. They had the truth according to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and nobody else did. Any dictator is his own ultimate truth. Nationalism probaby killed more than any other single source, where the state is the ultimate truth of goodness.

There is nothing unique about the ability of religion to be abused. Any group that believes that they possess the absolute truth about anything can and will abuse it.

[trotsky]

13. Sorry, but religion is fundamentally (no pun intended) different.

I realize you disagree. But communist regimes could not hitch their arguments or authority to gods or similar otherworldy entities. It was pure power. Religion has the added bonus of keeping people in check for the sake of the next life.

[rockymountaindem]

19. There are other, equally powerful linkages to be made by communism

Not all communism is atheistic by definition, but for places like the USSR which were, leaders could link their cause to the "march of history" or the "inevitability" of class conflict as outlined in Marx. That's pretty powerful right there.

[trotsky]

22. Powerful, yes. Didn't deny that.

But not as powerful, or of the same type of power, as religion.

[rockymountaindem]

24. Well, ok, but I disagree.

As someone who loves history, I think telling the masses that their actions will both shape the course of history and go down in it is a type of immortality. When you look at the Soviet Union and other atheistic communist states, they have some aspects of society which parallel religion. One example is the elevation of "heroes" above the rest of society. This is, in my opinion, akin to a priesthood of some kind. In our society, the celebrity fan culture acts much the same way. In a smaller, more religiously based society of the past, everyone would know who the Catholic Bishop of their city or who the local priest of Jupiter was. Today, a lot of people have vast amounts of knowledge about people like Tom Cruise and Lindsay Lohan. They're not idiots. Remembering who won every super bowl, which a lot of people probaby do, isn't for idiots. People just chose to invest their knowledge in certain areas, and to us such knowledge seems pretty useless.

I'm not saying that football is religion, but I am saying that people who believe in God invest a lot of mental and emotional energy in it, the same way a lot of people do with other things. Demigoguery of any kind is the danger, not just religion. You may think that religion gives such demigoguery an extra layer of legitimacy to the weak-minded, but I disagree. Every society, including the non-religious, has some kind of substitute. Genghis Kahn, the greatest conqueror of all time (and one of the worst murderers) didn't wreak his destruction because of religion, but because he believed it was his destiny, and because he could. People followed him out of greed, and because he was a charismatic man.

Religion is no worse a source of enmity and destruction than plain old greed.

[trotsky]

25. Here's why I disagree.

Plain old greed is a great motivator for an individual. Maybe a few of his closest henchmen, too. But how do you motivate the masses, who AREN'T going to get the big financial reward you're setting up for yourself?

Religion is PERFECT. "Don't worry, you unwashed masses, you'll get your reward after you die."

Under Soviet-style communism, you might be able to renege on your promise of bread, land, and peace for a couple of generations, but people will ultimately see they're not getting what you promised. Thus the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Religion, on the other hand, ensures that people won't ever see that the promises are not being kept. The Soviet Union is dead and buried. Religion goes right on keeping the masses under control.

[rockymountaindem]

26. You make a good point.

Especially about the USSR. Yes, it did fall after people saw it's promises were lies. I guess I can't argue with you there. However, I will argue with you about greed...

One can motivate the masses through greed. In a lot of the primary source material I've read on warfare in the past, individual soldiers stood to make a handsome profit. When you live in a mud hut and own one set of clothes, the chance to loot an enemy monestary or take even one gold chain from the body of a dead enemy general can be the difference between living comparatively well or continuing in miserable poverty. In a class I took on Swedish history, I read the account of one man from Britain (a neutral country) who enlisted in the 30 Years' War on the Protestant side. So, here's an Anglican who goes out of his way to fight in a war supposedly fought for religion. But, instead of faith, he wanted to fight for 1) money/plunder and 2) honor so he could return to England and improve his modest social standing.

Another example I've read is of privateers during the Napoleonic wars. Again, sailors of few means would sign on to fight and potentially die in a war started for political reasons, just so they might come back with a handful of gold coins or its equivalent in rum, tobacco etc. Here are ordinary men risking death by fire, water and bayonette just so they could make enough money to live on for maybe a year or two. I'd say that greed is pretty powerful.

And this brings me back to the USSR. The Soviet Union didn't fall because people yearned for spiritual fulfillment or wondered "why can't Gorby promise me eternal paradise after I die". The Soviet Union fell because people there finally realized that those of us in capitalist societies had a much higher standard of living. Even though there were no "guarantees" as in the USSR, most people in Europe and the USA had their own home with a private kitchen, a car, more money to spend on leisure activities, etc. The USSR fell in large part for materialistic reasons.

I don't think God surpasses greed as an excuse to perpetuate evil.

[trotsky]

28. And I see your point.

But motivating enough soldiers to control a population, and motivating the population itself, are two different things. Greed is powerful, just not as powerful as religion, IMHO.

[rockymountaindem]

29. Well, I've said all I can say.

I guess we'll just leave it at that.

:toast:

[Dorian Gray]

34. But they did just that, Trotsky.

Their leaders (Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh) all became God-like and worshipped by the vast populace in those countries. Their literature was studied, their images were placed all over, and the reverence that people had for them was beyond what a normal ruler has been afforded in the 20th Century. It was reminiscent of Ancient Rome, where the emperor was elevated to God-like status. Just as they were in these modern dictatorships.

[trotsky]

35. So it *was* religion that controlled the people?

Are you supporting my position, or arguing against it?

[Dorian Gray]

40. I think it was people

who USED religion to control people. The power hungry megalomaniacs twist ideologies around. Religion on its own is innocuous enough, just as any political or philosophical ideology generally is. Only when they are used by people to uphold a straglehold on a people are they dangerous.

I do fall into the camp that it is people who USE religion who are dangerous, not religion itself. Anybody can pervert a thing. Quite easily. But, that doesn't necessarily make the THING bad.

[trotsky]

45. But if the THING tends to foster uncritical thinking and obedience,

it's certainly more useful than the THINGs that cause people to ask questions.

[Dorian Gray]

46. Well....

the THING can't foster uncritical thinking. Only the people who CONTROL the THING can do that. :) There is nothing in the Bible (though as a Catholic, I don't take the Bible as concrete word of God, but rather a mix of allegory, historical recording, poetry, etc. that teaches lessons that we should follow) that holds up ignorance as a virtue. In all of Christiandom (or Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.), I don't believe that Ignorance or uncritical thinking promoted as a virtue.

Yes, obedience is, but theology allows for (and strongly leans toward) following your conscience. You are not supposed to blindly be obedient. You are supposed to follow your informed conscience in all matters.

So, it is not the THING, but rather those who control the THING who bring about the bad.

(That's what I believe, at least.) :)

This is an interesting conversation, though.

[trotsky]

47. Actually, for much of its history, the Catholic Church did indeed

look upon ignorance as a virtue in the masses. They fought like hell to keep the bible from being translated out of Latin and into a form that people could read for themselves. Its many stances in opposition to science over the centuries betray a clear preference for ignorance.

Religion is uniquely positioned to say "This is the answer, forever and always." and have a built-in mechanism to prevent people from questioning it.

[Dorian Gray]

48. I see what you are saying,

and I can not claim that the Catholic Church, at times, did not suppress knowledge. But (always a but), I will uphold that it was the leadership and their corruption who did so, not the ideology or theology of the religion that did so.

I suppose we can argue that RELIGION = THEOLOGY + PEOPLE. But, I will still contend that it is not the abstract concept of religion that was the instigator of the suppression of people. It was rather the human desire for power and control. They used the ignorant's reliance on religion and salvation, but it was their greed and desire for control that was the real evil. (Not religion in itself.)

I am Catholic (as I've told you), so much of what I argue is based upon my own Catholicism. But, I recognize the evil that was done in the name of Catholicism in the past. I know that there were evil popes. (The Borgias, anybody?) I know that the Church was more a political enclave for a long time than any bastion of spirtual purity. I know that the Inquisition was born out of the desire for power and the church. I know that Gallileo was excommunicated. At the same time, I uphold that the THEOLOGY behind Catholicism is pure, and in no way is that responsible for the ills that Catholic men and women have unleashed upon the world.

But, I think at this point, we've both stated how we feel. I'm worried that I'm going to start repeating myself on this topic.

[trotsky]

49. Funny thing is, I don't think you're disagreeing with me.

They used the ignorant's reliance on religion and salvation, but it was their greed and desire for control that was the real evil.

That was my initial point - that religion is uniquely qualified to be the tool such individuals use to control.

Of course we'll always disagree completely on whether religious theology is "pure."

[Inland]

18. No fair raising the communist regimes!

After all, there's always the ability to conflate nationalism with *some* aspect of religion. After all, did you see the belt buckles Hitler's SS used? There's no way to convince the ideologically committed that that Hitler's nationalism would not have been completely humane and progressive if not for the fact that he had to work with the catholic church.

But the communist regimes, from the hypernationalistic SU "motherland" to the xenophobic North Korea to the ideology driven Cultural Revolution, there's not even a belt buckle linking those regimes and their crimes to religion. The experiment was performed.

[trotsky]

23. Likewise, some folks always try to claim that somehow atheism is

absolutely central to communism. Not so for the first communists, the early Christians.

[manic expression]

39. Sorry,

but the early Christians were not Communist. On a purely technical level, "communism" refers to the followers of Marxist ideas, and Marx was far from the picture. On a practical level, they did not follow any socialist policies.

By the way, living in the catacombs does not count as "socialism" or "communism" in any way.

I'm curious though, how do you figure they were "communist"?

[Inland]

42. On a theoretical level, they couldn't be socialist or communist.

Marxist theory would require an industrialized society for either socialists or communists. They shared goods and income because of their religion. They weren't any more communist than a modern day monastery.

[manic expression]

43. In addition,

I do believe that they shared goods and income only with each other because of their religion. That is exclusive treatment, and is not a socialist policy.

[Odin2005]

50. Yep, orthodox Marxism is a secular "religion" for all practical purposes.

It is as dogmatic as any religion. A good example of this is how many of them try to pigeon-hole historical events to fit the ideology, such as thinking the rise of Hitler was because of German big business, which is not correct, big business just jumped on the bandwagon after the fact.

[manic expression]

38. No, it's the same misuse

Many, many, many terrible things have come about with virtually no religious motivation. This contradicts the argument that religion is more "potent" of a motivating factor. Racism "teaches" that there is an "ultimate" race. Nationalism "teaches" the supremacy of a state and country. Their motivation is just as powerful and just as effective and just as devestating as religion can be. Religion's potential for abuse is no more than and no less than other sorts of ignorant forms of attempted justification.

By the way, I fail to see how many religions are readily manipulated (Buddhism and Shinto jump to mind, and there are many others).

Good people who thought they were doing the right thing fought with their lives against the Allied invasion of Normandy. Boys no older than 16 defended Berlin; 13 year olds were made to join the army of El Salvador. That is more than a mere insult. Good people do bad things for all sorts of reasons. The ignorant are the ones who misuse religion for injustice.

[endarkenment]

3. I see a lot of threads

that blame unattributed DU posts for being 'bad'. For example, this thread itself, and this post of mine. I think, and it is only my opinion, that if you have a problem with a specific post you should argue with the poster. If you think that the subject itself is inappropriate you should take that post and that specific complaint to the admins. I really don't understand what the point of the 'Unattributed Bad DUer' threads are. They are a class of post, along with the 'a freeper friend of mine' posts, that I find rhetorically dishonest.

In reality your post is the assertion that it isn't religion's fault that religious nutcases have become the driving force behind much of the conflict in the world. Why not simply make your case for that rather than starting out by casting blame on Unattributed Bad DUers?

"Would you burn a hammer because someone used it to make a gallows?"
No - but I think a better analogy is gun control and strict separation of church and state. Both guns and religion are artifacts of human civilization and both need regulation.

[Lerkfish]

6. oddly enough, I had written the OP as a reply to such a thread, and

thought better of it because I didn't want to single out that one thread in fairness to the OP of that thread.
I felt that was actually being more fair that way.
But you make a good point for the other direction. Should I post this in that thread, then? Will that help?

[endarkenment]

9. It depends.

I tend to just debate the OP, but the other alternative is to start a new thread with your assertion as the topic. Sometimes both are in order.

As to your point, my response is that religion, like guns, needs to be regulated as it has proven to be dangerous, extremely dangerous, if allowed to corrupt government and politics.

[Lerkfish]

12. we are in agreement there should be complete separation between

church and state. Thus have I always argued.

[trotsky]

14. Thus you've always argued?

So you agree that we should be challenging the building of roadside crosses to memorialize fallen Utah State Troopers?

[Lerkfish]

15. do I stutter?

I have always argued for the separation of church and state.

[trotsky]

16. So answer my question.

Do you believe we should be fighting those crosses?

[Lerkfish]

17. I don't know the particulars of that case, but my opinion is

the memorials should not be paid for by the state if they use religious imagery. However, if they are erected by family, they have the right to display a memorial fitting their beliefs, just as jewish people would use something different, and muslims, etc.
I thought the Camp Casey memorial was good in that they tried to accomodate the religions of the individual fallen soldiers, but that was a private memorial.

I've answered your question.

[Lerkfish]

27. apparently, my answering your question is not to your liking?

:shrug:

[trotsky]

30. Sorry, missed this.

I thought you had been involved in the earlier threads on that specific case.

Opinion was almost unanimous among DU theists that it was frivolous, distracting, a Rovian trick, etc.

A summary: the state of Utah was erecting 12-foot crosses on the spots where state troopers had died in the line of duty, putting the Utah State Patrol logo on them as well.

The thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1961309

If you're honestly telling me that you support fighting those crosses and similar infringements on the wall of separation, then kudos to you. You're in the minority.

[Lerkfish]

31. why even ask if I'm being honest?

I am. But its rather insulting of you to imply differently for no apparent reason. :eyes: :mad:

I had not heard of that case, as I only venture into this forum when a thread shows up on the "latest" page.

I have always made clear, when it comes up, that I think there should be a strong separation of church and state, for two very good reasons:
I don't think its consistent with the idea of religious freedom to favor one religion (or religion in general) over any other, EVEN IF its my own religion.
The other reason is, I don't think the people that want to mix the two are doing a service to either: The rightwing nutjob fundies are poor representations of the religion, and the congresscritters who pander to them are the most corrupt whacks ever to come down the pike. They are both attempting to use the other inappropriately, because their relationship implies a quid pro quo that is wrong for both religion AND govt.

I preferred Carter's approach: he was clear of his religious views, but also clear that the separation was important.

thanks for pointing me to that thread, though. I think there are good points on all sides, but my opinion is that the state has no business using religious imagery. A simple square marker would accomplish the same thing and offend no one.

[trotsky]

32. Sorry, but given the clear pattern, even here among liberal believers...

you can't blame me for being a little suspicious.

[Lerkfish]

33. well, I can blame you if your suspicions accuse me of being dishonest

out of hand.
I don't appreciate that at all.

that's not very honorable or respectful to me, or anyone.

[trotsky]

36. Heh, I think you're choosing to read far more into it.

If I were to accuse you of being dishonest, I'd call you a liar.

[LaurenG]

5. I think the concept of Spirituality is a good thing

the connection with the divine self and all that happy stuff, but religion is a HUGE problem. For instance, the Bible is a big mess. It contradicts itself, is taken out of context and causes much consternation and pain. That in and of itself is a good reason for people to practice loving principles and values and LEAVE religion out of it. Religion has caused so much pain and death that I think whether you say it's men or religion there needs to be a massive attempt at keeping it out of our government and workplaces. There is way too much mean spirited evil interpretations that only hurt people and I for one can't swallow that.

[Inland]

10. Well, yeah. It's not all that seriously said, or seriously taken.

Some people want to use religion as a proxy for "bad". But it really doesn't work.

After all, the democrats basically have to choose between various religious believers to vote for year and year, and I don't remember a single person wondering if THEIR religious beliefs were going to bring the end of the world. Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Dick Durbin, Carter, Harry Reid.

Your approach is best.

[moobu2]

20. The problem

manifests itself whenever religion is allowed to infest the state.
Very few would give a hill of beans what delusional superstition someone said they believed so long as they kept it out of government.

[varkam]

21. I think if anything

the fact that so many people do so much evil coupled with the notion at how wildly popular religion is lays the groundwork for the argument that - if not part of the problem (which is what many tend to think that it is) - religion is not part of the solution.

The problem is not secularism, it's not that people have turned away from God, it's not the devil either. I agree that the evil in the world is solely the work of people (though I think it's existence is an argument against God, even if free-will is taken into consideration). But I would hesitate to claim to have a fix on our "nature". There was a study done recently that showed altruistic tendencies in toddlers - does that mean that our nature is good? Do we start out good, and does the environment corrupt us? Or are we inherently evil, and only through willpower and determination we can do the right thing? I think it might very well be a chicken v. egg question - but if it does have an answer, I suspect it will be a bit more complex.

[Evoman]

37. Your right people are pricks.

Bad people do bad things. A sociopath may kill despite being christian. However, look at the some of the major arguments we are having. Would it be logical for any person to be ant-gay, anti-choice, anti-science and anti-nonbelievers if it wasn't for religion? Not really. For the most part, people would be ambivalent about these subjects if it wasn't for religion. Are all problems caused by religion. No...things like racism and sexism, two of the biggest problems in the world, transcend religion. People are pricks....but ordinarily, pricks have a hard time finding colleagues and friends who like/agree with them. Religion gives the pricks power. Religion gives the prick validation.

Thats the problem I have with religion. I wouldn't give a two shits about it if these people didn't have such a huge effect on my life and my future.

Evoman

[manic expression]

41. OK

It is not logical to be anti-gay, anti-choice or any of those ignorant beliefs you said. However, you cannot say religion is the sole cause for these ills. I know people hate it when I do this, but policies of eugenics were pursued because people misunderstood science and misapplied it in the most disgusting manner. The point is that the terrible MISuse of scientific knowledge led to (IIRC) some 80,000 people being forcefully sterilized in the US alone. Just as science is completely devoid of any guilt or fault in this, so too is religion when it is misused and manipulated for wrongdoing.

Please, ANY sort of insane reason for injustice is power, whether it be racist, jingoist/nationalist, purely political, classist and otherwise.

Yeah, religious fundamentalist lunatics suck, and I'll be right with you when push comes to shove.

[Evoman]

44. Yes, but we learn and evolve

Are people still being sterilized? Are there still eugenics programs in the states? Do you know scientists who still advocated sterilization? No. Eugenics programs are useless we now know not only because they are morally wrong, but because they don't work. You can't get rid of most diseases by removing just those people who show a certain phenotype.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Period that scientists believe in eugenics? >about 100 years (give or take)

Number of scientists who still believe in eugenics? >close to 0

Period that the religious have believed all those things I mentioned > 4000 years give or take

Period of relgious people who still believe those things > roughly 80 percent worldwide?

I'm not saying that religious people can't change or evolve. Some of you on this very site are perfect example of stellar religious people. All you great lefty religiousos who don't believe that shit even thought its in your own holy books. You have changed. You have evolved into better people than those who stoned their family for religious infarctions or stoned their daughters for being raped some thousand years back.

But it wasn't the bible that did it. The bible is not the reason your good people. The bible hasn't changed in all that time. Its the fact that you don't take the bible that seriously that you've climbed out of that pit.

But hey.....maybe I'm wrong. What do I know. I just smacked my head against my coffee table and I think I may have a concussion. I have a lump the size of a finger on the back of my head. Hurts like a bitch.

Evoman

[manic expression]

51. Everyone does

Are people still being burned as witches? Are there still witch trials in Europe? What about the Crusades, I haven't seen many of them in awhile. This signals a significant change without a real change in religion. That means it wasn't the fault of religion, but of its misuse.

What we're talking about is the wrongdoing coming from the misuse of certain things. You need to ask yourself how many religious people still encourage the ACTIONS. That is not nearly as great. Believing in religion and religion itself is not the problem, it is the manipulation and misuse of religion that is the cause for terrible things.

I'd also like to add that change can go the other way as well. Arabia used to be the center of tolerance and learning after Islam spread. It changed for the worse, and the Quran was the same the entire time.

Considering of this, the scripture doesn't necessarily change, but the interpretation does, the attitude does, the mindset does, and that makes quite a difference.

The Bible's changed plenty. Gospels were added and removed like nothing. New versions threw out whole sections.

(This next part isn't really related to the discussion)
I personally agree with you on many points. I wonder why people who believe in many things that are not supported by the Bible, and are even contradicted and condemned by the Bible continue to believe in that very book. A Christian I know believes there is feminist divinity (goddess), and I can't understand why s/he is still a Christian (Father, Son, Holy Spirit and no woman). I sometimes think that people are not exposed to other faiths and other mindsets, so they make the best with what they have; I also think people are fearful of letting go for some reason, they don't want to explore other beliefs and outlooks, but that's just what I think. Oh, well.

Hey I hope you're OK. Get well soon!

[Evoman]

52. But....

You actually kinda just made my point. The reason we aren't burning witches anymore is not because the bible tells us its right or wrong. Its because science and scientific thinking tells us....there are no such things as witches. The crusades lasted hundreds of years...hell, in some places, they are still sort of happening.

Its not religion that gets you out of a pit of ignorance and suffering. It never has. It never makes things better and frequently makes things worse. I wouldn't at all be suprised to learn that Arabia was a center of learning BEFORE and after Islam spread. But like cancer, religion took over (of course, I could be wrong.

And thank you for your concern. I am doing better, though its probably not a good sign I woke up with a headache. Heh..I feel better now, however.

[manic expression]

53. Not quite

Education, learning, the renaissance/enlightenment and science may have helped to get people to stop MISusing religion, but that does not make religion guilty of anything. Science and religion are not two sides of a scale, they can coexist and support one another. For instance, Egyptian physicians were practically priests, but were also extremely advanced (and scientific). Just because frothing lunatics cited a certain book when they burned someone or launched a massive invasion does not make the book guilty, but progress in many areas helped people to more rationally and reasonably use that very book.

I would like to stress that many cultures easily blend the practical with the spiritual with no conflict. Ignorant actions in Europe do not make religion in India or China or Indonesia or Africa or the Americas or Europe, for that matter, guilty of anything. When Europe started getting its act together it became harder to manipulate religion for injustice, and that is why we see those changes.

On Arabia, it wasn't really until Islam spread that it began to be the center of learning, partly due to the fact that Islam made Arabia a center of religion in addition to the trade that was already there. Algebra, triangular sails (a marvel) and other accomplishments were made in the Islamic world. Furthermore, women there had much better treatment than they do now, if you can believe it, and that treatment was quite good for the time period.

Islam took over and started dominating other religions, namely Zoroastrianism and Eastern Christianity. However, Islam didn't persecute the people of the Abrahamic faiths, and for the longest time, it was devoid of the terrible treatment against Jews that was rampant in Europe.

If you want to look at something really cancerous, look at (Christian, for the most part) missionaries (:puke:).

[Zhade]

54. I don't blame religion. I blame the acceptance of unproven assertions.

The acceptance of unproven assertions can lead to wars and death - see "Iraq has WMD that will hit us at any moment".

"God exists" is another unproven assertion. By itself, not that harmful. But once that assertion is accepted, despite the utter lack of objective (that is to say, unbiased) evidence, other assertions ("the infidels must die", "all of Israel belongs to the Jews, so fuck the Palestinians", "God told me to kill the abortion doctor and oh yeah he also hates fags, they're next on His Holy Hitlist") flow from the root willingness to accept unproven things as true. It all comes down to how the assertion is interpreted by the assumer, and since there's no way to know which version is right (if, indeed, any of them are - no human being has the evidence to build the case that they are correct), literally countless variations ranging from loving to murderous are possible.

Of course, religion is not the only area in which people believe in things without evidence (see, for example, Bigfoot, though ironically there's MORE evidence for that than any gods). But as they say, in many instances it's a case of "there's a sucker born again every minute" (tip of the hat to Ladyhawk for that one).