This is why religion is a problem

[RobRoy]

It seems to me that in this case the offender used his position of authority as a religious leader to circumvent the usual limitations of his position of authority as a father- i.e. don't f[rule X] your daughter. If that's the case, we're back to square one.

Do we know who granted him this religious authority, and who is was leading, besides a justification for his own moral shortcomings?

I would surmised as "self-proclaimed" all "authority" was self-granted, and he wasn't leading anyone. This suggests rather that he was using religion as a scape-goat for something he knew was morally reprehensible.

 

[uruk]

The reasons he stated were little to do with any religion I'm familiar with. What religion teaches that rape and incest are ok? You can make a weird screwed up version of anything if your mind is so inclined.

What about Noah's daughters? Didn't they get Noah drunk and "lay" with him in order to get pregnant? Did god do anything about that?

How about Lot? When the angels came to his house and the men of Sodom (or was it Gomorra) wanted him to send them out, didn't Lot offer to send out his daughters to be raped instead?

Religion has been a factor in many atrocities. It has been a huge factor in much of history, so I guess that's hardly surprising. Being religious doesn't instantly cure people of badness.

And so many people seem to think so. People get bent out of shape when they hear about a priest comitting a crime. Being a priest only means that you set a higher standard of behavior for yourself, Not that you would actually achieve that standard.
Priest are human after all.

That said, it's probably fewer than 10% of all wars that could be argued to be attributed to religion.

That may be because in modern times we are dispensing with the charade and admitting to the true reasons for going to war.

Check out the last 100 years or so of Chinese history.

Never heard anyone attributing a war to Buddha. But you might have something with Confucious.

 

[uruk]

The article says the man is a "self-proclaimed pastor." What if he were a self-proclaimed doctor -- would medicine then be "a problem"?



M.

"I raped her for medical reasons" doesn't quite have the same gravitas.

 

[uruk]

What I do not like is the idea that, "God made me do it." is more likely to get a reduced sentence than saying "the gun made me do it." They both are unacceptable.

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue. A gun does not tell you to kill someone, but a god can.
How often does "go forth and smite" and " do not suffer the _____ to live" appear in bibles and religious texts?

 

[Piscivore]

Do we know who granted him this religious authority, and who is was leading, besides a justification for his own moral shortcomings?

The only people that had to accept it for the rape to happen was himself and his daughter. That the judge isn't going to accept it is where his problem now lies.

I would surmised as "self-proclaimed" all "authority" was self-granted, and he wasn't leading anyone. This suggests rather that he was using religion as a scape-goat for something he knew was morally reprehensible.

I would say more as a shell game. "I'm not doing this as your father, I'm doing this because this is what god wants" sort of thing. As much for his own benefit as hers, in that you are correct.

 

[Piscivore]

What about Noah's daughters? Didn't they get Noah drunk and "lay" with him in order to get pregnant? Did god do anything about that?

No, that was Lot (again). Noah just got drunk and passed out with his cubits hanging out. One of his sons covered his nakedness, another didn't and got cursed.

But no, god didn't do anything negative about the incestous rape of Lot.

How about Lot? When the angels came to his house and the men of Sodom (or was it Gomorra) wanted him to send them out, didn't Lot offer to send out his daughters to be raped instead?

Yep. And god decided to spare him the doom of Sodom for it, too.

 

[RobRoy]

The only people that had to accept it for the rape to happen was himself and his daughter. That the judge isn't going to accept it is where his problem now lies.

Well, really, since it was rape, his daughter didn't have to accept it. In truth, he didn't either. He might or might not believe what he was spouting, but there's no requirement that you actually believe a justification to use it.

I mean I can justify cheating on my wife by saying that 75% of husbands cheat on their wives. I don't believe that's a justification, but I could use it.

I would say more as a shell game. "I'm not doing this as your father, I'm doing this because this is what god wants" sort of thing. As much for his own benefit as hers, in that you are correct.

Could be. So the end conclusion is that he either knew he was doing something wrong, or there's something wrong with his moral barometer. Either way, religion isn't really the blame here.

 

[uruk]

I have also read the same Bible, and come to the opposite conclusion. I have also been appointed and ordained to the position of Elder over a Presbyterian congregation. (One might say that this alone is de facto evidence of "religion over reason", but that would be only a matter of opinion.)

It comes down to interpretation. You read the bible and see nothing that justifies the priests action. He reads the bible and finds his justifications.

Thus I assert that, given all available evidence, it is not "religion" that is at fault, but that religion has instead been touted as the "Cause of Convenience" by a criminal for his own criminal actions.

That would depend if the priest is using the religion as an excuse or if his interpretation of the bible gave him the idea to perform the act. And we probably can't make that determination untill the details of the case come out.

After having worked in Prison Ministries, I can assert that criminals generally fall into two broad categories: (1) the type the claims innocence by virtue of having been framed or "set up", and (2) the type that acknowledges their crimes and tries to justify them with some higher-order issues of philosophy or religion. Either way, they are trying to divert their guilt by laying the blame elsewhere.

Again that would depend if the excuse came before or after the act.

There is a difference between saying "I did it because the bible said so" after the fact and "Hmmm, the bible says I should do this so I'll go out and do it." before you commit the act. A fine line maybe, but do you see the point?

(Some criminals do acknowledge their guilt and accept their convictions, but these folks seem to be very rare.)

Good for them. Shows remorse.

Had he read a Biology textbook, claimed to be a self-made Scientist, and cited his Biological urges as justification for incestuous rape, then Science would have been blamed for his actions.

Science is often blamed. "I'm and alcoholic because I have the alcoholic gene".

Religious belief does not justify any criminal act.

Nor should it ever.

 

[uruk]

No, that was Lot (again). Noah just got drunk and passed out with his cubits hanging out. One of his sons covered his nakedness, another didn't and got cursed.

Wow, remind me never to let my cubits hang out.

 

[Piscivore]

Well, really, since it was rape, his daughter didn't have to accept it.

I mean that in the "not struggling" sense. If she accepted his religious authority trumped his parental responsibilites she wouldn't resist it.

In truth, he didn't either. He might or might not believe what he was spouting, but there's no requirement that you actually believe a justification to use it.

True.

I mean I can justify cheating on my wife by saying that 75% of husbands cheat on their wives. I don't believe that's a justification, but I could use it.

Whether you believe it or not, it isn't really a justification like "I did it because it was what god wanted" is. It's the difference between "I was just following orders" and "but all the other kids did it too".

Could be. So the end conclusion is that he either knew he was doing something wrong, or there's something wrong with his moral barometer. Either way, religion isn't really the blame here.

Isn't doing something one knows to be wrong (outside of serving a greater good) a symptom of one's moral barometer being off?

If relgion gives one a "greater good" such that one feels justified in doing something one knows to be wrong, doesn't that put the blame back on religion?

If religion is the reason his moral barometer is off, then it is to blame.

 

[RobRoy]

Whether you believe it or not, it isn't really a justification like "I did it because it was what god wanted" is. It's the difference between "I was just following orders" and "but all the other kids did it too".

Actually, no, no difference. "Just following orders" and "all the other kids" is the same justification. That's moot though. The point is that you don't have to believe in a justification to use it, and we seem to agree here.

Isn't doing something one knows to be wrong (outside of serving a greater good) a symptom of one's moral barometer being off?

If you know it's wrong, then why would you need a justification?

If relgion gives one a "greater good" such that one feels justified in doing something one knows to be wrong, doesn't that put the blame back on religion?

Well, first I would argue, as I have above, that almost all religions have as a basis a "due unto others" foundation. Moving from that, justification for "doing something one knows to be wrong" usually comes from not following that concept. While one can find a religious justification for that, it's usually a weak or a lame justification.

If religion is the reason his moral barometer is off, then it is to blame.

Sure, if it's a religion with something other than one with a "do unto others" basis. My understanding was that he claimed a Christian base, which means "do unto others" is pretty fundamental.

 

[Zygar]

Sure, if it's a religion with something other than one with a "do unto others" basis. My understanding was that he claimed a Christian base, which means "do unto others" is pretty fundamental.

The basis of the religion does not take away from two pivotal facts about religion:

1) Religion allows people to have authority they would not otherwise have.
2) Religion allows people to justify actions they could otherwise not justify. Whether to themselves or to others. This is because they are either self-deluded that every whim that overtakes them is from god, or because they are abusing the above mentioned authority.

Whether a religion has good intentions is beyond the point.

 

[Hokulele]

No, that was Lot (again). Noah just got drunk and passed out with his cubits hanging out. One of his sons covered his nakedness, another didn't and got cursed.

I heard there wasn't much to see, it was only gopher wood.

 

[articulett]

Since god appears to be indistinguishable from "voices in ones head"... there is no method for telling when someone is actually getting messages from god (or believes that he is) and whether he's inventing excuses. God, apparently, works in mysterious ways, after all.

If the people who believe in god heard the guy say that god told him to give all his money to the poor... I suspect they'd believe it was a "real" message from the invisible creator of the universe-- but when the message conflicts with what their own imagined god would say, they accuse the guy of being crazy or lying about hearing from god.

I think it's weird to live in a society where it's considered ennobling to be in touch with an invisible divine power. I think that is a notion that should always raise eyebrows, no matter what the voices are saying. When it comes to god, everyone is sure they believe in the right one and no one has any method for teasing out people who really believe they are getting messages from god and those who are faking it. God is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion.

Even though I don't believe in any god, I note that a lot of people seem to believe they are getting messages from him. And they don't exactly agree with each other or with behavior that I find moral. If you believe god talks to people, then you have can't really claim to know that god didn't tell the guy in the article to do vile things to his daughter.

I think the notion that god talks to people ought to be relegated to the realm of superstition like rain dances. It's not a sign of being "chosen"--it's a sign of being delusional. I'd like to spread the understanding that faith is a bad way to KNOW anything. I think many horrors are committed in the name of religion that would not have been committed without religion.

 

[articulett]

Wow, remind me never to let my cubits hang out.

your epidermis is showing...

 

[m_huber]

After having worked in Prison Ministries, I can assert that criminals generally fall into two broad categories: (1) the type the claims innocence by virtue of having been framed or "set up", and (2) the type that acknowledges their crimes and tries to justify them with some higher-order issues of philosophy or religion. Either way, they are trying to divert their guilt by laying the blame elsewhere.

(Some criminals do acknowledge their guilt and accept their convictions, but these folks seem to be very rare.)

I think the question would have to be when the justification was made. If he raped his daughter, then had to answer the question "why did you do that," then religion is not to blame, but was just an excuse. If, instead, he was reading the Bible and decided "I need to have sex with my daughter," then the blame must be on religion.

The man raped his daughter between 1998 and 2006 after telling his wife, three sons and daughter that God had told him to fulfil his promise as a "descendant of Benjamin".

(From the link in the OP)

This makes it look like he decided what he was going to do, explained it to everyone, and then did it. Therefore, it would appear that the blame rests on religion.



I was extremely religious until about a year ago. After making some horrible mistakes with the way I dealt with situations and people, I discovered that I made much worse decisions if I tried to listen to the "voice of God" before taking action. I think the same thing is going on in this case, but to a much more horrible extent. When God is invoked, the blame is not on the individual any longer. He was trying to achieve a greater good, and in so doing, he performed a horrible action.

 

[articulett]

I think urges and feelings we don't understand have long been attributed to gods, demons, thetans, and so forth...

I think this guy found himself attracted to his daughter and interpreted it as a message from god... I think polygamous Mormon men do this all the time... It's nice when your god happens to want exactly what you want for yourself. Suppose the daughter had gotten a message that it was really Satan trying to tempt her dad and pretending to be god--

When you believe invisible, immeasurable, entities that influence humans, you can be so readily manipulated and you can so readily fool yourself and others. Lots of folks claim to be in on "divine secrets"... their "secrets" are no more verifiable than this man's divine secrets. I think it's much smarter to teach each other to doubt all such messages.

 

[Egg]

What about Noah's daughters? Didn't they get Noah drunk and "lay" with him in order to get pregnant? Did god do anything about that?

How about Lot? When the angels came to his house and the men of Sodom (or was it Gomorra) wanted him to send them out, didn't Lot offer to send out his daughters to be raped instead?

It was Lot's daughters, not Noah's (at least not that was reported).

I didn't say that you couldn't find stories in the bible and take them to justify whatever you might want them to. I asked which religion teaches that rape and incest are ok. Have you ever heard of any churches which would defend that kind of interpretation of those passages?

And so many people seem to think so. People get bent out of shape when they hear about a priest comitting a crime. Being a priest only means that you set a higher standard of behavior for yourself, Not that you would actually achieve that standard.
Priest are human after all.

I agree. If anything, the added authority and responsibility could be putting them under more stress. I can understand the getting bent out of shape part though. It is also a position of trust.

Never heard anyone attributing a war to Buddha. But you might have something with Confucious.

You were asking for an incident where an atheist killed a religious person because they believed in a god. This was a pretty common occurrence under atheistic communist regimes. Although it could be argued that believing in god was not the only reason they were killed and that the killers didn't do the killing just because they were atheists, it remains that people were killed by atheists because of their god beliefs.

 

[Egg]

I think the question would have to be when the justification was made. If he raped his daughter, then had to answer the question "why did you do that," then religion is not to blame, but was just an excuse. If, instead, he was reading the Bible and decided "I need to have sex with my daughter," then the blame must be on religion.

In the same way that Heavy Metal should take the blame when some teenager goes nuts with a gun after listening to their favourite CD?

 

[articulett]

No. Nobody is propping up this notion that there are hidden messages on CDs or in music. All believers prop up this notion that there's an invisible man who guides people via messages one gets in one' head.

See the difference?

I don't think any CD has inspired people to fly airplanes into buildings, hate homosexuals, or rape their children...