Many religious people believe that religious tolerance is all about religions being allowed to do as they damn well please, while the right to vocally dissent is revoked from anybody who has a problem with their views or practices. The whole notion of religious tolerance would be fine and dandy if all religions were in fact tolerant in their composition, but they are not. So effectively what religious tolerance actually amounts to is, tolerance for the intolerant. They expect to be extended a courtesy that they have no intention of extending to others. No surprises there, “do as we say not as we do”, same old hypocritical rubbish regurgitated with a new vocabulary, but still without a shred of irony.
I’ll make excuses for the plain stupid, they’ll just drool whatever catchphrase is doled out to them, proud as a dog with two dicks that they’ve got two more big words to accompany ‘wheelbarrow’ in their vocabulary. But how can the ones with brains actually keep a straight face. I’m convinced that the propagandists behind this religious tolerance lark have slapped the thighs of their jeans threadbare at the hilarity of this little gem they’ve armed the unquestioning dolts of the Western world with. I know the boys in the Cult of Scientology are soaking the seats of their cash stuffed trousers laughing as people actually go around actively protecting their mind-control empire for them in the name of tolerance, under the ludicrous impression that adopting such a bowel-brained stance as that advocated under the title ‘religious tolerance’ makes them open-minded. It actually better serves as an indicator that their mind was opened up just enough for their squirrel-sized brain to be scooped out onto the floor, and squished under the heels of their masters in the accounts departments of various religious corporations.
The most glaring fallacy of this whole religious tolerance nonsense lies in the fact that the religious advocates of such a theological bullet-proof vest only see fit to extend it to officially recognized ‘religions’. If you are unlucky enough to find your faith in the realm of the cult, well, then it’s open season. Apparently tolerance only needs to be extended to those with the right paperwork. Evidence enough can be found to verify this statement in the protection Scientology enjoys today as opposed to when it was officially a Cult, not least of which lies in its tax exempt status and the massive amount of leverage it enjoys in the courts through touchy feely religious tolerance horseshit.
Behaving in a regressive fashion and holding regressive views that defy reason should be no more justified, or tolerated, by aligning it to religious beliefs than it should when attributed to secular beliefs. It’s as simple as that. If I say that Joe down the street is crazy as a sack of assholes because he believes gravity is a government conspiracy in mind control which is designed to prevent us from flying, nobody jumps to the pulpit and starts berating me for being intolerant do they? But if Joe says that anybody who doesn’t do as he believes the Bible says will burn for eternity in an underground lake of fire in a mythical place called Hell and claims to be in direct correspondence with God, I’m suddenly an intolerant monster for not humouring his religious madness? Please. If that’s what being religiously intolerant means, then I’m proud to be so.
If religions want to be religiously tolerant then they need to expose their children to as many religious and secular belief systems right from the start of their lives. The Unitarian Church is the only church that readily springs to mind as a truly tolerant Church. Note I said Church, because they are not recognized as a tax exempt religion in the US. Now that’s tragically funny isn’t it? A church that is dedicated to religious tolerance proper is not considered worthy of tax exemption.
The Unitarians believe in an open platform where all belief systems get their say, where children are presented with all sides of the debate at a point where their minds are developing the basis for how they think as adults. This is markedly different from the approach of most religions, which strive to drive home their belief system alone as the ‘one truth’, especially during the early developmental years of a child, in order to hardwire them to the faith. Most religions condition children in the home to disregard the beliefs of other religions as essentially wrong and discourage any proper discussion or deviance from the path of the religion they have chosen to condition their children to believe as infallible. Such contrived and singular exposure to theology is hardly the way to establish a breeding ground for tolerance.
I believe that people who hold unsubstantiated and regressive beliefs as part of their chosen religion need to learn to tolerate other religions with equally unsubstantiated and regressive beliefs. That is where religious tolerance should come into play. Crazy people fighting with other crazy people, simply because they think the others are crazy, is hardly productive. But don’t tar us all with the same brush. Some of us don’t claim to have our actions directed by an improvable divine force and our decisions aren’t being attributed to, or justified by myths and far fetched notions. We are not under the same duress to tolerate your fantastical belief systems, as we lead by example, by reasonable example. When Jesus said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, he was talking about us; the Agnostics and Atheists.
Cheers for the 1 vote squirrel brain, perhaps you'd care to justify your knee-jerk rating? A rating of 1 should be reserved for completely pointless posts, so if you believe that to be the case, then at least have the testicular fortitude to blow it out of the water. It shouldn't take more than a single sentence if it truly merits the 1 rating you saw fit to extend.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
I just thought I was dumber for having read that. If given the opportunity to make better use of my time than to have read this basically verbal bash vomit in electronic form, I would have chosen not to read this blog. I thought I'd pass the favor on to anyone else who may not want to make the same mistake.
As far as "testicular fortitude", I suppose being female, that's not a physical attribute of mine ...but please do yourself a favor and don't continue to believe that blasting everyone who bursts your "I'm a badass so let me scream obscenities about everything" bubble makes you any kind of a man (actually you sound whiny, not ballsy.
That's why I gave you a shitty rating. The reason I didn't comment is because I wasn't doing it for you. I didn't think that deserved a response, but since you asked so NICELY :)))) I am happy to oblige your request.
I have to agree with TUFFGONG on this one. Although you might not agree with his opinion and it might not be the best of arguments, he presented his case in a well-organized, (relatively) non-inflammatory, and well-written manner. The point of the rating system isn't to demote blog entries that you don't agree with, but to rate the quality of the blog itself. Is it structured well? Does it have a point? Is it free of spelling an grammatical errors? The ratings system is meant as a tool, not a weapon.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
"The point of the rating system isn't to demote blog entries that you don't agree with, but to rate the quality of the blog itself."
And yet, we have to keep on repeating that same line over and over again.
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
"I just thought I was dumber for having read that."
I don't think you felt dumber for having read that. I just think you didn't like it, hence the petty 1 star rating, which was childish and lazy. Like spitting in somebody's face by way of argument.
"...but please do yourself a favor and don't continue to believe that blasting everyone who bursts your "I'm a badass so let me scream obscenities about everything" bubble makes you any kind of a man (actually you sound whiny, not ballsy."
I communicate in an honest fashion using words that I deem fit to express myself. The fact that you'd attempt to attack my masculinity based upon my use of language that you deem to be obscene is just sad and petty. It's right up there with calling me gay. It's a cheap potshot usually favoured by a certain type of woman whose male counterpart can be found accusing women they find disagreeable of suffering from penis envy.
Anyway thanks for confirming what I already suspected.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
The reason that I gave this poor rating wasn’t because I disagreed with it. Actually in some ways I do agree with what he has to say, but I did think that the way it was structured and presented was inflammatory and unproductive. (Let’s be honest, it probably did have something to do with the fact that it was the seventeenth bitchy whiny article I’d read in a row. The rating probably did come from more of a “Taste my pain, BITCH.” Attitude than saying, “Well let’s talk about this” like it should have—and for that, I do apologize. But please hear me out. There’s more to it than that.
Here are a few points of contention:
“Many religious people believe that religious tolerance is all about religions being allowed to do as they damn well please, while the right to vocally dissent is revoked from anybody who has a problem with their views or practices.”---—I’m not sure who you’re specifically referring to, but that’s not really the case in my experience. Maybe if you are talking about a specific instance you could describe that better, but phrasing this in such a vague defensive manner, immediately causes you to loose credibility. Your article is weak from the beginning because it tears down, it isn’t progressing anywhere beneficial.
“they’ll just drool whatever catchphrase is doled out to them, proud as a dog with two dicks that they’ve got two more big words to accompany ‘wheelbarrow’ in their vocabulary”--—I don’t care who you’re talking about or in what context…This is pretty inflammatory and useless speech. You just made over half of your audience think you are an asshole. (Including me, but I kept reading)
“The most glaring fallacy of this whole religious tolerance nonsense lies in the fact that the religious advocates of such a theological bullet-proof vest only see fit to extend it to officially recognized ‘religions’.” ----The idea of religious tolerance didn’t come from people who are the Pat Robertsons and Shirley Ropes Phelpers you may be picturing in your mind from up there on the soap box…It came from people like Martin Luther King Jr. or even Pocahontas who weren’t trying to cover their own ass or bitch about how somebody was mean to them, they took risks to better the whole of society in an honorable way. My problem is not with your main point that “Sometimes people have a double standard about Religious tolerance and treat other people in a pathetic way to look better.” –point conceeded fully. My point is that this blog does way more to divide people and make the issue worse than it does to clarify what religious tolerance should look like. I stand by my statement that it is much more whiny than ballsy.
“Behaving in a regressive fashion and holding regressive views that defy reason should be no more justified, or tolerated, by aligning it to religious beliefs than it should when attributed to secular beliefs.” Also agreed. But in this article you take on the character of the very thing you claim to be opposed to because of the way your tone is. I want to make it clear that I do agree with some of the basic concepts veiled here, but they are widely overshadowed by the person and voice you take on. Unless someone has the mirror view of you, or is incredibly patient, they probably haven’t read this far in your article.
“Crazy people fighting with other crazy people, simply because they think the others are crazy, is hardly productive. But don’t tar us all with the same brush.” I could repeat the same thing here that I said for the last section. I agree as a concept, but you are acting like the thing you warn against.
“When Jesus said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, he was talking about us; the Agnostics and Atheists.”---No, he wasn’t. He was actually defending a prostitute from religious people. Though she may have believed in God because of the culture she lived in and how strongly that belief held presence in that place and time. He was portraying what religious tolerance really should look like. He didn’t have to be unitarian to do it, he just tactfully made them aware of the situation. And the next line in that passage says “And the oldest walked away first”. The more you live the more you are aware of your own shortcoming. Everybody knows that religious people can suck it up with the best of them. That’s not what we need to hear about. This could be a good article if it was really stepping out in such a brave manner as you mentioned Jesus as doing in order to reveal truth and contribute to progress. But it wasn’t. It was written in a way that detracted from the truth about this issue more than it contributed to progress. That’s why I gave it the rating that I did.
Oh, and the reason that I came back is because I was surprised to see it on the front page, so I wanted to see what other responses it had generated since my impression was pretty poor.
Ps: no actual hate on the author. I know I can be mean , but honestly I don’t hate you. However, you don't know me, but I also say what I honestly think in the manner that I deem appropriate. My point wasn't to shut you as a person down…I do think you could do better though. And I am sorry to have offended you.
"I’m not sure who you’re specifically referring to, but that’s not really the case in my experience. Maybe if you are talking about a specific instance you could describe that better"
What I was referring to is the tendency for many religious people to to use the term 'religious intolerance' as a kind of gagging order when anybody makes a perfectly fair criticism of their religious beliefs. There has been plenty of instances where I have witnessed people bandying about the term in the same way people use the term 'racist' inappropriately to shut people up.
"This is pretty inflammatory and useless speech. You just made over half of your audience think you are an asshole. (Including me, but I kept reading)"
Inflammatory, yes, useless, no. I'm not too concerned about the percentage of people who think I'm an asshole after reading that sentence, largely because it was directed at a good portion of them. To be honest it made me chuckle when I read back over it. Sorry if you think I'm an asshole, enough people don't. That's not say I wouldn't prefer if you didn't think I was an asshole, I just won't lose any sleep over it.
"The idea of religious tolerance didn’t come from people who are the Pat Robertsons and Shirley Ropes Phelpers...."
What I was actually addressing was the manner in which the term is abused and what it has come to mean today, aswell as what it facilitates. By that I mean the fact that children are conditioned through ruthlessly aggressive persuasive technique and religious tolerance facilitates this. In another blog of mine I address this to some degree;
http://www.progressiveu.org/130746-major-religions-fringe-cults-time-to-...
"I stand by my statement that it is much more whiny than ballsy."
A little hypocritical for somebody who claims to be so offended by inflammatory statements. That right there is fighting talk. I never claimed to be ballsy, that is something you came up with on your own, as for whiny, well that just suits you to think that. You've already decided I'm an asshole, so why not paint me up as a whiny one while you're at it. So far you've called me a whiny asshole who is no class of a man, or something to that effect. Nice one.
"Unless someone has the mirror view of you, or is incredibly patient, they probably haven’t read this far in your article."
Why would you assume that? It may be inflammatory, people may not agree with it, but I speculate that it is at least a relatively entertaining read. I have no way of verifying that of course, other than my own opinion, and the handful of votes that balanced out you swipe at me. But even if some people took exception to it, I still don't see why they'd stop reading. Granted that is based on my own perspective as personally I've thoroughly enjoyed reading blogs I've disagreed with and found quite offensive, in fact I often read them more intently than the ones I do agree with. For instance I love reading hardcore Christian blogs and I wouldn't stop reading for a second in case I missed what was coming next.
"No, he wasn’t. He was actually defending a prostitute from religious people."
Are you for real? That was clearly a joke. I said he was addressing us because we are not religious, don't believe in sin, and the least likely to stone a prostitute to death. Although on a serious note I would speculate that Jesus was most likely Agnostic or Atheist, we make the best cult leaders.
"He was portraying what religious tolerance really should look like."
I agree. He was protecting somebody from being murdered based on the crazy whim of the religious. It's exactly what I would advocate; restraint of religious people from behaving in a way that would be deemed unacceptable or unreasonable if their drive was secular in nature.
"I was surprised to see it on the front page"
It's on the front page???!! I never thought they'd let me on the front page. That's news to me. I usually just go straight to the recently posted blogs and buddies blogs. Nice one. I love ProgU.
" And I am sorry to have offended you."
Don't worry about it, I have pretty thick skin for an unmanly whiny asshole with no balls.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
Yep, you're on the front page. You've been there before... at least I thought you had (the blog about the fringe cults).
Many of the blogs I read intently are those with a view opposite of mine. It doesn't make sense to me to not read a blog because you disagree. If all you do is read and respond to the people you agree with, you do yourself no favors, IMHO.
And on an unrelated note, the conversation or discussion you guys are having about whether you are an asshole or not reminds me of that song "I'm an asshole."
"You know, the whole time I thought I was that asshole
And it turns out it was him
What an asshole!"
I love that song. :)
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
"Yep, you're on the front page. You've been there before... at least I thought you had (the blog about the fringe cults)."
Well I never...Just goes to show how quickly I just navigate to the side menus.
"If all you do is read and respond to the people you agree with, you do yourself no favors, IMHO."
I agree completely. It encourages you to think and question yourself and often forces you to pull the thumb out and go and learn something.
"And on an unrelated note"
...I park my car in handicap spaces, while handicapped people make handicapped faces...I'm an asshole.
Altogether now....
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
Out of curiosity; if you felt it was so bad as to deserve a 1 rating and no comment... why did you come back to it to see his comment requesting the rater to step forward?
"Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other half may reach you." - Kahlil Gibran
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." Isaac Asimov
Sorry I had to laugh when I saw this comment :) I mean, I think you're the first person with enough gumption to actually just ask outright why someone left a "1" on a well-written blog.
But, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that it was you who would be the first to do this :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
That unwarranted 1 Star was a big burning bag of shit on the doorstep of the wrong blog I merely wanted to know what inspired them to ignite the turd on my porch and to let them know that there are far more progressive ways to yell "Booo, booo, down with this sort of thing!!".
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
The quakers are pretty tolerant.
However, this is one of the many reasons why I don't believe in the idea of 'rights.' It gives an unwarranted entitlement to immunity which I don't particularly care for. Rights inhibit freedoms and progress by limiting what you are allowed to do in the name of freedom and progress (however you see it).
I like your new picture, by the way.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
That's true actually now I think about it. I've only ever met three quakers in my life and they were really a pleasure to deal with and from what I understand they are a pretty tolerant bunch.
"However, this is one of the many reasons why I don't believe in the idea of 'rights.' It gives an unwarranted entitlement to immunity which I don't particularly care for."
I couldn't agree more.
Glad you like the picture. Me and my lucky black and red balaclava.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
If you can, you might want to consider going to a Friends' meeting. Perhaps you might change your mind (if only slightly) about the relevence of religion in modern society.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
The primary reason for that low of a rating (my first) is the pathetic lack of percision in what you are against. Your worst problem is choice of the phrase 'religious tollerence.' By choosing that term you confused the issue with 'religious freedom' Since you would not be allowed to say what you said without religious freedom you are surely not against that. The phrase that I think you might have used to avoid appearing to contradict yourself is 'political correctness.'
Why did you choose 'religioue tollerence as your title? I think you are trying to offend.
Later in the post you confuse religious tollerence with multiculturalism by suggesting that religious people who believe in tollerence should expose their children to many religions. That demonstrates your ignorance in that religious tollerence is the right to NOT be subjected to religious beliefs that others.
"When Jesus said ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’, he was talking about us; the Agnostics and Atheists." I understand what you are TRYING to say here, but your statement is completely false. Again percision is you problem. The prostitute may have been a metaphor for everyone that deserved punishment under the law being shown mercy, but it was not specificly directed to agnostics and athiests as you claim. It is nice that you give credit to the person it is due (Jesus) when it comes to freedom of religion.
I agree with what you are trying to say, and even find your obvious intent to outrage the people you are complaining about funny. I also agree with just about everything that your previous critic has to say, but you managed to offend Her.
As a former Athiest, and Agnostic I feel very secure in claiming that both positions are equal in superstition to any religion you can name. My diatribe to prove it will be posted as a blog in the near future. Please come and tell me how MY logic is wrong once I post it.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"By choosing that term you confused the issue with 'religious freedom' Since you would not be allowed to say what you said without religious freedom you are surely not against that."
I don't have a problem with religious freedom. I live in a country that is still clambouring out of a Christian theocracy, where 98% of the schools are Catholic. The last thing I am against is religious freedom, because living in a Christian or any other religious theocracy is my idea of hell. I don't think I confused the term religious tolerance with religious freedom, I think too many religious people confuse the term religious tolerance with freedom from criticism, and too many people have also cofused the term 'religious freedom' with 'religious free-for-all'.
"The phrase that I think you might have used to avoid appearing to contradict yourself is 'political correctness.'"
I've never been accused of being politically incorrect by religious people I've argued with. 'Religious intolerance' is their new catch phrase, basically it's the new 'politically incorrect'. It is misused by these people when they describe somebody who criticizes their relious beliefs. My point is that just because their religion is to be tolerated, that does not mean it is to be free from dissent. Too many people just don't get that. They believe that they should just be free to practice whatever they want under the banner of 'religion' and be left to deseminate persuasive messages and convert people to regressive belief systems while those of us with secular belief systems sit back and watch with our traps zipped shut.
The practice of a religion should be tolerated, but if you disagree with their practices you should be free to speak out without having false charges of religious intolerance leveled at you. These people are being tolerated, that doesn't mean they should be unhindered in their spreading of unreason. I also don't think they should be afforded any special sympathy for their beliefs simply because they are religious, a belief is a belief, if it is regressive it deserves no special respect just because somebody calls it religious.
They are allowed to persuade people to their unreason and so am I allowed to persuade people not to buy their lies or support their madness in the pipedream hope that they will fade into obscurity as remnants of a barbaric past.
"Later in the post you confuse religious tollerence with multiculturalism by suggesting that religious people who believe in tollerence should expose their children to many religions. That demonstrates your ignorance in that religious tollerence is the right to NOT be subjected to religious beliefs that others."
What I was getting at is this, if religious people want future generations of their children to uphold religious tolerance, then they should expose them to as many religions as possible outside of their own, rather than raising their children in an insular belief system which shields them from understanding other belief systems around them. Where do you think a Christian American would enjoy more freedom, in a more secular country like France, or a non secular country like Iran?
What is the point of providing people with the right to religious tolerance if all they're going to do with it is utilize it to breed intolerance and ultimately force their will on others through conditioning their children in an insular environment where rather than making up their own minds as to what is right, they are conditioned to believe something simply because it is all they've been allowed to know. What are these religions so afraid of? Why, if they purport to be so concerned with religious rights and tolerance are they so slow to expose kids to a variety of religions? Do they really think that sustaining a child's ignorance of other belief systems will produce an adult who will be more tolerant of faiths that they don't understand and know nothing about?
"That demonstrates your ignorance in that religious tollerence is the right to NOT be subjected to religious beliefs that others"
You aren't looking at the full picture. I'm not talking about forced exposure to other beliefs. I'm talking about parents being responsible and willfully exposing their children to them to foster understanding. Can you really tell me that you think a child is better off raised in ignorance of other belief systems and that this will help them to be more tolerant of others and will condition them to want to maintain a climate of religious tolerance?
"The prostitute may have been a metaphor for everyone that deserved punishment under the law being shown mercy, but it was not specificly directed to agnostics and athiests as you claim."
That was a joke.
"I agree with what you are trying to say, and even find your obvious intent to outrage the people you are complaining about funny."
Yet you reserved the a 1 star rating for me. The lowest score on this site, one reserved for posts of absolutely no value, one reserved for posts with appalling grammar, spelling and punctuation. Despite reading the comments you still went straight ahead and hit the one. For somebody who has accused me of being ignorant, you certainly know how to do that dance yourself fella.
"As a former Athiest, and Agnostic I feel very secure in claiming that both positions are equal in superstition to any religion you can name."
As a former Catholic, I can tell you that Agnosticism is nowhere near equal to Christianity or other religions in superstition. You don't think I was raised Agnostic now do you? I was raised in a mixed Christian family, Catholic, Methodist. I attended Catholic schooling for 12 years. I live in a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic. If you think Agnosticism equals Christianity for superstition, i would suggest that maybe you have a different idea of what Agnosticism is to me.
Incidently, you say you're an ex-Atheist and Agnostic, what are you now? A pantheist? panentheist? I'm interested to know who I'm dealing with here.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Let me start with where we agree.
Religious intolerance as an accusation is basically thought crime. How is it possible to have free speech if you are not allowed to have free thought? Here in the USA we have a new legal concept called 'Hate Crime.' The logical progression of that scares me.
"For somebody who has accused me of being ignorant, you certainly know how to do that dance yourself fella."
That is how I can so readily identify ignorance. Everything I know is tiny compared to the vastness of my ignorance.
Atheism is a more superstitious position than agnostism. I made the switch from one to the other at about age 14 or 15 because it offered a more unassailable position from which to argue. Several people I argued with over the next decade or so, that I did not at the time give the satisfaction of knowing that they had, planted the eventual seeds of the faith that I now enjoy.
1 star may have been too harsh. Your writing skills are good, and I had not realized the cultural differences (I am living in Florida, and gained most of my youthful prejudices in Oregon, USA. You're in Ireland?) Could account for what seemed to be poor word choices at first read. Though we both speak English the meanings of some phrases are widely different.
Now for where we diverge.
1) You were TRYING to get some people to 1 star you by open hostility. How can you object when the frontal assault style has its intended result?
2)"My point is that just because their religion is to be tolerated, that does not mean it is to be free from dissent. Too many people just don't get that. They believe that they should just be free to practice whatever they want under the banner of 'religion' and be left to deseminate persuasive messages and convert people to regressive belief systems while those of us with secular belief systems sit back and watch with our traps zipped shut."
The secular believers of the world are very likely the most prosthletising religion in the world today. In the US their beliefs are tantamount to a 'state religion' in that the public schools are promoting them at tax payers’ expense. Just as religious theocracy is your idea of hell the same is true for those you are criticizing when it comes to secularism. The people you disagree with have legitimate reasons to feel attacked.
3) Religious tolerance (freedom) is the right to NOT be subjected to religious beliefs that others wish to subject you to. Even though you secular beliefs are based on (often flawed) reasoning I am including them in the religions that have no right to force themselves on others. This really is my big problem. And the dare I say hateful (maybe just disgusted) attitude that you present it with is 1 star worthy. I am not an adherent to non-violence (perhaps I would be a better person if I was), since all of the worlds issues are settled by violence one way or the other, but hate is the devil to me.
----------
I've been discussing the existence of God in this thread, primarily with percivale. He seems as firmly secure in his (un)beliefs as I am in mine, and neither of us has given up yet. Check out that back and forth for more detail of my views than I wish to type again.
http://www.progressiveu.org/035310-is-god-real
A fact is always better than an ideal
"Here in the USA we have a new legal concept called 'Hate Crime.'"
It's different here in Ireland. We have specific acts, for example an act called the 'Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred on Account of Sexual Orientation Act', which is one that Rev Fred Phelps takes particular exception to. See www.godhatesireland.com for more on that.
"Everything I know is tiny compared to the vastness of my ignorance."
Spoken like a Agnostic. The same could be said for anybody, it's a shame that most religious leaders can't man up and admit that, instead of claiming that they know 'truths' that there is clearly no way for them to evidence.
"Atheism is a more superstitious position than agnostism."
I don't believe that either are particularly superstitious. Atheism in it's purest sense, declares that there is no God as a definite, although most Atheists I know usually describe their position as believing there is no God based on lack of evidence to support God's existence. So you could maybe argue that it's fundamental assertion is based on a belief. I just find it infinitely more tasteful for Atheists to encourage people to explore their argument as a means of liberating people from their religious superstition, largely because they are not trying to rope people in to following their orders. Atheism is the cure for the persuasive abuses of religion, if a person believs like an Atheist, then they are infinitely more free in mind than somebody who believes in a God invented by men, whereby they have to live under the invented rules of this invented God.
As an Agnostic, I believe that no man has yet conclusively proven God's existence or non-exitence, so I don't see it as reasonable for man to claim they know either way, when they clearly don't, as demonstrated by their inability to prove it. I believe that we have barely managed to get our asses of one single planet on which we live and that it's a little early in the day for people to be making grand claims, especially if none have produced conclusive evidence. How exactly is that superstitious in your book?
"I made the switch from one to the other at about age 14 or 15 because it offered a more unassailable position from which to argue. "
I have been Agnostic since before i new what it was. I finally put a name to it, thanks to my older brother, when i was about 12. I didn't choose it as a more unassailable position from which to argue, I simply was never an Atheist. Agnosticism is simply the most honest and reasonable position to hold for me, all the others are just guess work and finger-crossing, and some are just blatant down right fabrication to sell product ie Cult of Scientology.
"1) You were TRYING to get some people to 1 star you by open hostility. How can you object when the frontal assault style has its intended result?"
Not true. If I wanted 1 star ratings I wouldn't have written anything more than "Rilligin is stoopid an allyou riligos peepl r stoupid hedz fuck u pussyazz biitch", that's how you get a 1 star bonanza, except from people who write like this, who will inevitabley 5 star it and email it to their friends, so they're all armed for the next time they need to argue about religion. Those poor bastards will write it on bits of paper that they can slighly look at next time somebody argues religion with them, then watch as their competition crumbles just as 'pussyazz biitch' rolls off their unusually thick tongues. 'Sick Burn' they will think and thank the stars that they read my post and had the foresight to write it down...I digress, but you get the picture. You have if nothing else, been interested enough in the entry to debate it, you were by your own admission amused by parts, you've even agreed with parts, you recognize that it's reasonabley well written. Now if you were to breakdown what makes a good post and score each facet seperate, I don't think every facet would score 1, in anybody's book, if they were rating it reasonably as opposed to emotionally.
"The secular believers of the world are very likely the most prosthletising religion in the world today. In the US their beliefs are tantamount to a 'state religion' in that the public schools are promoting them at tax payers’ expense. Just as religious theocracy is your idea of hell the same is true for those you are criticizing when it comes to secularism."
Secularism isn't a religion, it prosthletises that reason based law is vastly superior to laws based on mythology. You could call it the Church of Reason. Yes, a reasonable world may seem like hell to the unreasonable in theory. But under a secular state, these people have their religion tolerated, under a theocracy, their religion would most likely enjoy less tolerance not more. More secualr individuals realise that you can't just make people stop believing, that's not how faith works. Secularists realise that education is the way to break people out of conditioning, which is why religions want in on the schools big time.
As a supporter of secularism in state, I believe that kids should be thought how to think for themselves, as opposed to simply conditioned to believe something because they've been threatened metaphysically. If these religious belief systems really did have 'the one truth' they wouldn't be threatened by kids thinking for themselves now would they? I would encourage kids to read as much about other religions and persuasive technique simultaneously, how many religions would be happy if that's what was implimented by was of putting religion back in American schools? Not many I would speculate, no cleric wants to go head to head with an Agnostic on an even platform for the minds of kids. When they're just a set of grifters in a sea of other grifters, they will feel threatened when people come along and start wising people up to the mechanics of the confidence trick..
"The people you disagree with have legitimate reasons to feel attacked."
They feel attacked??!!! Don't make me laugh. They just don't like the feeling of a climate where people can call bullshit on them without their being able to burn or hang us for it. they don't like the fact that information is so freely circulated and in such vast amounts, that their lies and techniques can be exposed more easily. Of course they feel attacked, reason is snapping at their heels, cruising on a wave of argument and information, the shit is hitting the fan, the whistle is being blown and they can't just tell people not to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain and expect everybody to follow their order, the wizard is being rumbled. Call it an attack, I simply call it being exposed.
"Religious tolerance (freedom) is the right to NOT be subjected to religious beliefs that others wish to subject you to."
We disagree here a bit. I see religious tolerance as being about not having one singular religious belief system forced upon you. I would include secular systems like Atheism and Agnosticism here to. I believe if we want a truly religiously tolerant society that works toward positive progress, people should be exposed to as many systems as possible so they can make up their own minds, rather than be kept in ignorance so they don't know any different. The form of religious tolerance you describe is a sytem by which you afford organisations the right to raise children in ignorance, which thus narrows understanding. A combination of ignorance and lack of understanding will only promote large pockets of intolerant people who can't understand why another group has the right to live their life outside of the dogma of their religion, be those people secular or religious.
If I raise a child to solely believe in secularism and prevent them from laerning about religious belief systems, i am not being fair to my child, I am not being honest and I am not encouraging them to be tolerant. i don't want people to disbelieve because I have not allowed them to think any other way, i want them to disbelieve because they've weighed up all the evidence and information then can be afforded. The difference between me and most religious people I know is that religious people have no problem explaining to other people's kids what they believe, but they would lose their minds if I broke down Agnosticism or Atheism for theirs. That is the microcosm from which my views on religious tolerance spring.
"And the dare I say hateful (maybe just disgusted) attitude that you present it with is 1 star worthy."
Frustrated and disgusted would be more appropriate. It comes from writing my thesis on the abuse of persuasive technique in childrens advertising. The title of my thesis was 'manufacturing the Consumer' and it deals with the agressive use of persuasive technique and marketing strategy to condition children into adults who are hardwired to cosume. Having attended Catholic school for 12 years, for most of which I was Agnostic, I saw a direct correlation between the practices and techniques of advertisers with the manipulative conditioning techniques employed in singular religious education.
Persuasive advertising directed at children aims to impregnate their young developing minds with brand recognition and brand association. It aims to condition the child to build their identity through the purchase and aquisition of mateial things. It aims to condition children into consumers, using the same principles that religions use to condition children to only believe their system.
If Coca-Cola is the only branding that a child sees repeatedly throughout their childhood as a result of Coke sponsoring their books or vending machines in school, or maybe Coke is providing free lunch boxes and buying up the only beverage slots on Kids tv channels, then Coke will be the standard by which other soft drinks are measured. There a a multitude of lesser known colas, but kids raised under this conditioning will often blindly believe that all are inferior and not even worth trying because Coke is the cola they've been conditioned to believe is 'The Real Thing'.
I find it distasteful and manipulative that advertisers target kids to sell them product and condition them into super-consumers, so why would i find it any less disgusting when a religion does it? In fact, at least the advertisers don't threaten the children's mortal souls with an eternity of pain for not drinking Coke or smoking Camel cigarettes. At least the advertisers are honest enough to say that the bottom line and controling the market is what they're all about. At least the ruthlessly capitalistic advertisers aren't allowed by law to bring God into it as a mechanism by which they can persuade with maximum agression. So that should explain my attitude, i think it has a little more depth than simply 'hateful', which I must say is a word that is abused to no end, it's up their with 'racist.' I hate the heavy-handed persuasive mechanics of of many religions, I'm disgusted by the bullying, the threatening and the unscrupolous manipulation of young minds, I destest the underhandedness of their techniques. And let's just say I'm not too hot on them abusing the religious tolerance afforded them to breed intolerance, while accusing people who dissent against this behaviour of being 'religiously intolerant'.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
I would give that response a 4 you have eliminated the hate, and thus expressed your point more effectively. I still differ with some of your conclusions.
As far as atheism and agnosticism being superstitious, I've been there done that. I would not try to convince a Catholic they were superstitious, unless I was drinking with them, so I'll extend you the same courtesy. If we were tossing back a few we could get into it and you'd have the chance to take a swing at me if I got too offensive.
"Secularism isn't a religion"
Why do you suppose they feel they have to oppose other religions?
"Under a secular state, these people have their religion tolerated"
"Encourage kids to read as much about other religions"
Multiculturalism does not threaten my religion, nor does it threaten the secular religion. In fact it is a tactic that secularism is using to advance their agenda of religion elimination.
I would not trust a person that did not share my faith to explain it to you. You, I am guessing, might have issues with a catholic priest explaining secular beliefs to your child. The only fair way to implement this religious education would be to give equal time to EVERY freaky belief system (taught by true believers) out there, or allow a Childs family to choose which to implement. I submit that the right to educate your children in your religion is the single most fundamental requirement of religious freedom.
There are few examples of secular societies, outside of our own cultures of the present which we are too immersed in to judge effectively. The 'communists' states of the recently defunct eastern block are the only ones that come to my mind. They, just like every theocracy I know of, viciously oppressed other religions. The USA began as a refuge for all of the undesirable religions they deported from your country (98% doesn't happen by accident) and others. Thus 'freedom of religion' has been a prized value since 1776. In reality that meant you were indoctrinated in what ever religion was the majority in your local community. Usually Christian, but some areas Mormon, Quaker, or what have you and tolerance for anything not offensive to Christians was the rule. People were smugly happy with this unless their beliefs offended the majority.
I tend to support the 'voucher' proposal that would make government education funds available to whatever school parents chose for their children. You could require basic accreditation, as long as the acreditors did not establish prejudicial standards.
I think your intentions are good. That unfortunately is not enough because of human nature. If you ever find yourself in the position to effect change I hope you pay extra attention to protect the rights of minorities, and those pesky Catholics.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"Why do you suppose they feel they have to oppose other religions?"
It's not a religion, and it opposes other religions because it aims to break the monopoly on religious mind control in an attempt to limit the spread of unreason. Secularism encourages people to think rationally as opposed to emotionally. Secularism doesn't employ improvable metaphysical threats to sway opinion and control behaviour. Secularism claims accountability for it's actions and does not fall back on mythology to explain itself. Secularism is about raising up a civilization which is rational and takes responsibility for it's actions, it's about recognizing the value of citizens who think for themselves and actively pursue truth, instead of just accepting somebody's word for it without evidence.
That is why secularists criticize religions and attack their regressive beliefs. Religion needs to evolve. The Unitarians are big players in this evolution, their model is to be applauded; that's what religious tolerance should be about: sharing knowledge, spreading understanding, breeding tolerance. Allowing the individual to analyze the information and make a decision for themselves without the threats and enforced ignorance. I don't believe that religion needs to disappear, I just think that many of the existing ones have had their day and now they should be taken about as seriously as scientists still wandering around claiming the Earth is flat.
"Multiculturalism does not threaten my religion, nor does it threaten the secular religion. In fact it is a tactic that secularism is using to advance their agenda of religion elimination."
Or of religious evolution, preferabley to a far more reason based position, where they've eased off on the metaphysical threatening and the fear of information. It speaks for itself though, when you consider multiculturalism an identifiable tactic for eliminating religion. It's a validation of that old chestnut, 'the truth shall set you free', and what better way to find truth than to be exposed to a multitude of opinions and knowledge from a host of cultures and creeds. I know why this is so threatening to organized religions, because there's only room on the block for so many grifters before everybody gets hip to the con.
"I submit that the right to educate your children in your religion is the single most fundamental requirement of religious freedom."
It is, but it must be accompanied by qualifiers if progress is to be made. For instance, parents have the right to raise their children as aracist and hateful, it's their right as private citizens, it's their right as parents. But it is accepted by most that this right to singularly educate your child in regressive beliefs should be countered in schools by making people more away of the regressive nature of racist and hateful beliefs.
By doing this, the child is afforded at least a fighting chance of waying up more than one side of the argument. I was refused exemption from religious studies classes in school, even though I asserted that I was Agnostic and let me tell you, in that class all we discussed was Catholicism, with only a passing reference to how other religions were just wrong. That is intellectually and morally curupt. It neither suggests genuine faith in the power of their beliefs to compete against opposing ones, nor does it foster a desire to learn or understand, while also willfully compromising the child's freedom of mind.
Brainwashing is something which is often mixed up with mind control when accusations are leveled at religions and it often sparks pedantic arguments over terms used/misued. With children who are born into strict belief systems and raised in as contrived a way as possible to limit external stimuli in the form of competing belief systems, they are being conditioned for mind control. Brainwashing involves the wiping clean of a mind and the reprogramming of that mind towards conditioning for mind control. With a child, the mind is already clean, so it's not really possible to brainwash it, nor is it necessary. Esentially by limiting external stimuli, the parent is in fact limiting the child's reality and moulding the way they will think. With a dogmatic conditioning as afforded by many religions this facilitates control of the way children think.
If a child is conditioned to believe in certain things without proof, they will be hardwired not to question in the same manner as a child who is conditioned to explore and to seek understanding. The child who is conditioned to believe is primed to be receptive to propagandic messages, as they are pre-persuaded. They are more vulnerable to being led emotionally by a religious group, because an organization has ensured that from birth, that that child's defensive barriers are at their lowest for the only brand of "truth" they've been significantly exposed to.
The idea is to grab them from the bud and own them as adults, it's what advertising and marketing department strive to do. There's not that much mystery there. It's a lot harder to programme somebody if there's lots of competing stimuli, they are far more likely to start programming themselves.
"The 'communists' states of the recently defunct eastern block are the only ones that come to my mind. They, just like every theocracy I know of, viciously oppressed other religions."
That's not a reasonable example, as it was too extreme. Extremists on any end of the scale are not good. You can't just force people to stop believing, you can't completely revoke their right to practice their beliefs. That was a big mistake, it was bad secularism, but at least that can be admitted and a lesson learned from it. Unlike Christian theocracies that have slaughtered and tortured millions, whose religion remains indignant and unaccepting of blame. As evidenced by the fact that they still claim the Bible to be the word of God and stand by that claim, thus standing by the same guiding principals that justified their savagery in the past.
"The USA began as a refuge for all of the undesirable religions they deported from your country (98% doesn't happen by accident)"
The US provided very little refuge for unpopular religion from my country, because Christianity had so agressively propagated itself by the point the US came into being, not non-Christian religion could exist long enough to provide refugees.
Before the native Irish even realised what had happened they'd been stripped of vast swaths of their heritage and culture and had it replaced so sneakily with a Catholic Christian identity, that was so engrained through religious control of school and state, that you'd swear the first ameoba to grace the land here millions of years ago was a Catholic. When I hear another Irish person describe Ireland as a Catholic country, it really pisses me off. Ireland is an Irish country.
"I tend to support the 'voucher' proposal that would make government education funds available to whatever school parents chose for their children. You could require basic accreditation, as long as the acreditors did not establish prejudicial standards. "
In much of Western Europe, parents can send their kids to pretty much any school, they're free to choose and not restricted by state or area. But in Ireland 98% are Catholic, with the rest pretty much divided between Protestant and Jesuit, with a tiny number of multidenominational schools. So you get your pick of Christian schools pretty much. It does provoke schools to maintain high standards in education, because otherwise students will just go elsewhere.
I'm seeing big changes in many Catholic schools which are reflecting how peoples attitudes in Ireland are becoming more secular, most notabley in the rapidly increasing percentage of lay teachers to brothers and nuns, especially in the Principals and Vice Principals in schools here. Parents are pushing for lay staff and the schools have to respond or they lose good students. There is still a Catholic agenda in these schools but it's getting pushed further and further back in significane behind academic concerns. Hopefully acadamia will inevitabley cause more and more students to see through the manipulative bullshit and think for themselves.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
"Religious evolution"
Great new phrase. I like that whole paragraph. The con man reference in the last sentence might be a mistake. Debate is strategic if you desire to advance toward your goals. The best way I ever heard that phrased was by an old salesman: "Sometimes you kiss ass, and sometimes you kick it. Different strokes for different folks" You have an active foot at times. Offending people and convincing them are tough to do at the same time.
I love the passion that you have for this. It really comes through in your writing. Even though I feel a little guilt for the 1 star, it goes away when I credit my opposition for the continued expansion of the thesis.
Here in the US Christians have been the huge majority. Martin Luther and the printing press were timed very well with the voyages of Columbus when Europeans were looking for a way to get rid of all the odd new flavors.
Let me tell a personal story to illustrate why I see secularism to be as dogmatic as religion. When I was about 10 I got into an argument in church over the unfair treatment of Cain in the Bible. I ended up leaving church mad, since they just tried to shut me up, rather that arguing with me (if you think I'm argumentative now.....). So I became an atheist. In my class we had Christians, Jews, Mormons, A few Vietnamese whose religion I do not know and one other Atheist.
She was a girl whose parents were atheists. Because of the Constitution, religion was not taught except for 'World Religions' which spent nearly all of its time on non-Christian religions in a very secular way. We did however do special holiday oriented decorations for Halloween, Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick’s Day and a few others. Mostly Christian holidays. The Jewish kids made Hanukkah (sp?) decorations at Christmas, and many Christians do not like Halloween symbolism of Halloween, but everyone participated with one exception. The Atheist girl. Her parents insisted that she leave school whenever we were doing these 'superstitious' activities. Those activities more closely resembled arts and crafts than indoctrination. I remember her being embarrassed by this, and though I was willing to argue the Atheist cause when ever and where ever it arose she NEVER discussed it.
At the time I just lived through it. And it was not until later when I switched to Agnostic that I began to recognize that her parents were the most dogmatic of any of my class mates.
Vouchers-----
"It does provoke schools to maintain high standards in education, because otherwise students will just go elsewhere."
---As a Truth worshiper this is the main reason for my support of vouchers. I don't care what secular/religious education accompanies it; if Children are well educated the whole problem of them making progress toward a better future will take care of itself.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"everyone participated with one exception. The Atheist girl. Her parents insisted that she leave school whenever we were doing these 'superstitious' activities."
I'm Agnostic and I love Christmas, Hallowe'en, Paddy's Day and have no problem celebrating all of them. But I celebrate them as good times, not out of worship. I see these celebrations, as just that, celebrations, theiy're fun, that Atheist girl's parent just didn't know how to have fun. You can't taint Atheism, simply because two joyless people, who also happened to be Atheist, had kids and tried to suck the joy out of them too.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
"You can't taint Atheism, simply because two joyless people"
I agree with you. The same applies to every belief system. I'm like everyone else in that the sum of my experience is the window I peer out of.
Thank God for reading.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"I agree with you. The same applies to every belief system. "
Not really. Largely because there is no reason that an Ateist, according to Atheistic belief, should not enjoy the festivities at a time of celebration. The only onus Atheists are under, according to Atheitistic beliefs, is the onus not to celebrate them for superstitious reasons.
Whereas, many religious beliefs systems actually contain dogma which dictates unreasonable behaviour, often related as the direct word of God, like murdering homosexuals or heretics, or refusal of blood transfusions and life saving surgery. When a religion propagates unreason deliberately as an essential part of it's make up, it is infinitely more accountable for the actions of it's followers than Atheism is for the actions of it's supporters. If their actions are the result of a belief derived from words dicatated from books that they were led to believe were the infallible and perfect instruction of God.
There are stupid Atheists and Agnostics, no doubt, who will do stupid and barbaric things while calling themselves Atheists and Agnostics. But that's despite these beliefs, not because of them. A Christian who murders a homosexual is merely doing as the Bible asserts. An Atheist who murders a homosexual is doing so because HE wants to, not because Atheism says murdering homosexuals is what he should do.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Then the bloody foot prints of atheism through history wouldn't be right beside the ones left because, or in spite of the major religions.
"Murdering homosexuals or heretics, or refusal of blood transfusions and life saving surgery." Are commands that I have no reference to in my Bible. Please provide the quotes to which you refer. I do have a few that forbid all of these: "Thou shalt not kill" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" "Love your neighbor" "return unto no man evil for evil" Are all commandments to Christians.
Organizations purporting to be Christian have committed all of the atrocities you mention. When they did they violated Christian teachings and became hypocritical. For Stalin, an Atheist who committed all of the same atrocities and more, there was no hypocrisy. No rule of atheism forbids slaughter. Millions killed and marched off to die in slave labor camps without any moral issues at all. Done 'for the good of the state' it could even be said that he served his highest moral principals.
They teach very little history in school. Because of this you may be mislead to believe that genocide is a rare thing among humans. This is a list off of the top of my head:
2006-7 Darfur
1994 Rwanda
1988 Serbia
1970s Cambodia (Pol Pot)
1967-70 Biafra
1949-1970 China (Mao)
1940-45 Germany (Hitler)
1930s Soviet Union (Stalin)
1915 Armenians
I would rather people at least thought these were evil acts.
Atheism doesn't even recognize the concept of evil. It isn't 'scientific.'
A fact is always better than an ideal
I'll see your....
"Thou shalt not kill"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"Love your neighbor"
"return unto no man evil for evil"
With...
Leviticus
20:13 "If a man lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, then surely they must be killed, their blood is upon them"
Deuteronomy
"17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."
Psalm 79
"Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call your name."
Psalm 35
""If someone pushes another from hatred, or hurls something at another, lying in wait, and death ensues, then the one who struck the blow shall be put to death."
Exodus
21:23 "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"
"Organizations purporting to be Christian have committed all of the atrocities you mention. When they did they violated Christian teachings and became hypocritical."
Oh contrare, they had the Bible quotes above to justify their action as a service to the divine and these would also have come in handy for convincing the masses to support them in their attocities with a spirit of righteousness gleaned through the belief that they were serving God, as opposed to simply behaving in a self-serving manner.
To be fair you can't just blame the people for being hypocritical. The Bible, which is the enitire basis of their beliefs, is laced with hypocrisy. If they just accepted it as the twisted and manipulative word of man, then they could accellerate the rate at which vast swaths of it could be eliminated as foolishness and cause their religion to evolve to a relatively respectable belief system.
There are manner brilliant and wise teachings in the Bible and I think that giving some men recognition for compiling these beleifs and condemning the less worthy ones, is a lot more progressive, than simply attributing the entire lot to God, then having to make excuses for the hypocrisy.
Some Christian beliefs are good, some are bad, both are justified in the Bible. All of them are the words of man and none of them are divine. Strip the fairytales and obviously dated regressive principles away and you are left with good old fashioned reason.
"For Stalin, an Atheist who committed all of the same atrocities and more, there was no hypocrisy. No rule of atheism forbids slaughter. Millions killed and marched off to die in slave labor camps without any moral issues at all."
There is essentially no hypocrisy there. But there is a moral issue. Atheism doesn't justify Stalins actions, only Stalin can justify his actions. He is accountable for them as his Atheism stresses the individual's own accountability for their actions and agenda. Stalin is responsible for his own morals under Atheism. If Stalin wanted to claim he was doing it for the good of the state, it would be incorrect; he was in fact doing it for the good of 'His Vision' of the State, and not to sate an all powerful God's will.
"Done 'for the good of the state' it could even be said that he served his highest moral principals."
It depends on his moral principles. But at the end of the day, those moral principles are his and we all have them to varying degrees. For instance, the moral principles of somebody with Narcissitic Personality Disorder will be very different to somebody who doesn't suffer this disorder. Being a Christian or an Atheist won't make any difference to this person's morals, because their inability to empathise is psychologically impaired. The difference is that the Bible justifies all manner of self-serving behaviour in the name of service to God, while Atheism requires you to justify your own actions yourself. Christianity justifies the slaying of homosexuals as righteous, whereas an Atheist has to come up with worldy reasons for murdering homosexuals and convince himself that he is just, and account for blame if it later transpires that he wasn't.
"They teach very little history in school. "
It's different here, we learn a lot of world history. We have an advantage over Britian and the US in that we actually get taught about all the sneaky bad shit that Britian and the US don't want taught in their schools. But the defecit comes in when you realise that over here, Catholicism will always be preseneted in as rosey a light as possible.
They will try to shirk blame from the men who wrote the Bible onto the shoulders of men who merely followed the allegedly infallible word of the Bible, just as most Christians do, and all the while they will cling steadfast to the notion that the men who did the writing did so with God's untainted word, while maintaining that the wickedness of those who followed it came from a willfully perverted misinterpretation
"I would rather people at least thought these were evil acts."
I see them as sadistic, self-serving, blood thirsty acts of men. They all had their reasons. To write them off as plain evil is simplistic and discourages any attempt to understand why they happened or the thinking behind them. With secular attrocities, the agenda is man's alone, the chances are that there was secular thinking behind it which can be analyzed scientifically in order to advance knowledge and understanding of human thought. Learning from mistakes by taking accountability for dodgy reasoning and it's disasterous results and learning from it. Because it's clearly and self identifying as man's thought, people generally don't have any problem saying 'that was a really bad idea, let's try and make sure that doesn't happen again, the guys who thought up that one were a sick and greedy bunch of assholes".
If Hitler was to stand up and declare that Jews in Germany amounted to an economic invsion. If he asserted that he believed that they had Germany in an economic strangle hold and that these 'foreigeners planned to take over Germany relegating the native Germans to poverty, and he used this to justify the extermination of 6 million Jews, we would have something to work on reasonably. We would be able to analyze and critically explore his justification and learn from the outcome of his exploits.
If Hitler had simply said that the Jews were servants of Satan trying to wipe out the 'one truth' and it's followers in Germany, and that Germany must rid the Earth of Satan's servants, we would be left in a deadlock, because the Bible is the word of God and supposedly perfect, which means people who believe this can't actually void a single letter of it without undermining the basis for their understanding of God and his nature.
Many Christian organisations just write people off as evil when those people do dispicable acts in the name of the religion. Rather than analyzing properly and honestly how their belief system was accountable for justifying those peoples' behaviour, they just write the followers off as evil instead of recognising that their belief system is based on fundamentally flawed beliefs that justify heinous acts.
"It isn't 'scientific.'"
It isn't, I admit that I use the term myself as a catchall term for acts which are too complicated for me to sum up quickly. The act of an 'evil' man can, later under more rigourous scrutiny, turn out to be the act of a frightened and threatened one, or a mentally ill one, or a really greedy one, or a desperate one, or....
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
The quotes are in the Bible and are used for justification of evil. Considering the 'every word is from God' theology it is a little hard for me to decipher why they don't sacrifice Sheep any longer. Maybe some of them do.
"Being a Christian or an Atheist won't make any difference to this person's morals,"
Historically, I agree. In fact, though I may have done a poor job stateing it, my point was intended to be exactly that. You pointed out the problems with christian morals, and I tried to point out that those problems were universal to humanity. Including the few athiest societies we have been given as examples. I don't think that an athiest based government with a constitution that throughly limits government power and protects human rights would neccesarily be a bad thing, just as its being secular or athiest doesn't make it better.
if you bash humanity as a whole, and all of their self serving beliefs, including atheism I would jump in and applaud. You might have gotten a 5 star rating if you had started out hating hate instead of only one set of hypocrits. We don't want to leave anyone out. Do we?
A fact is always better than an ideal
With the genocide. Amoral beliefs just don't hold the moral high ground.
"An Atheist who murders a homosexual is doing so because HE wants to"
"there is no reason that an Ateist, according to Atheistic belief, should not enjoy the festivities at a time of celebration."
Athiests can party or murder as they please. Can you explain the moral superiority of that?
A fact is always better than an ideal
...so I thought I would take a quick stab at it.
> Athiests can party or murder as they please.
> Can you explain the moral superiority of that?
The idea that "morality" can only be obtained from a supernatural sort is frankly ridiculous. It is a simply matter to realize that because I do not want to be murdered, I can see the value in joining together with other people who don't want to be murdered and forming a society that treats murder as a social taboo. Similarly, one doesn't need a supernatural source wagging a finger at you in order to realize that if a person parties without any rational restraint it is a pretty good bet that they're going to suffer negative consequences for it.
I think that good old Thomas Jefferson said it best...
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? t is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God. ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
That he missed the works of comunist Ateists in this century.
I'm not sure, but had there been an athiest based government before his time?
A fact is always better than an ideal
...and is at the very least, non-sequitur to the points I made. But, let me ask you...do you reeeaaallllyyy want to compare the viciousness of the world's few atheist governments to the bloody and violent history of the christian religion and the state that have adopted its churches as their official houses of religion? I think that you and I both know that if we compared the piles of the dead, the impact of the atheistic regimes would all but disappear into the vast shadow of the bodies that have been savaged throughout history in the name of the christian "god."
I also have to say that I find it more than a little disingenuous to attempt to lay the atrocities of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Stalin at the feet of their atheism. For one, these men shared a far more significant commonality which was their rabid devotion to the principles of Marxism and Communism. Atheists do not belong to philosophical sects, and there is no guiding or inherent principle in atheism that determines how an atheist "should" treat the religious folks they encounter. Communism is generally hostile to religion, and atheism is also a general principle of communism, but the connection you draw is a causal fallacy.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
If the religious hold any edge on cruelty and despotism it is only because through most of history they have killed off the atheists as fast as a few of them appeared. In this present century they got soft, and allowed the only atheism as state religion that I am aware of. Those fiesty atheists were up to the challenge, and have definitely been making up for lost time this century.
The point I was making is that atrocities are a human problem rather than a religious one, and the atheist comunists made that point quite nicely.
Perhaps the moral atheists that justify your condemnation of the religious are just not power hungry enough to take charge and save us all.
A fact is always better than an ideal
Freaking Phelps. Hates everyone.
-----
~Fallon~
"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." Henry David Thoreau
-----
...but it is inaccurate to describe laws of this sort as "new." This countries first "hate crime" statute was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (proposed in 1964 and became law in 1968). This law was specifically prompted by a spate of racially and religiously motivate violence and vandalism directed against the black and Jewish communites in the United States. The concept for such a law is even older, and we can see examples of laws of this sort in designed to protect Jewish people from anti-semitism in the Ukraine dating back to 1918, at least.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.