This is why religion is a problem

[Rufo]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things.

 

[Fnord]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

 

[Egg]

At the risk of pushing things even more "off the rail", I'd like to offer the idea that Stalin did what he did because he may have been a power hungry paranoid, and perhaps saw the Church(s) as a potential enemy, fighting for control over the people.

I think that's probably right too, but would he have seen the church as a potential enemy had he been a believer?

ETA: Religion does not automatically create evil people. It does, in many cases, set the stage that allows evil people to take advantage of others.

I agree that it can.

 

[Zygar]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

I hate to admit this, but Fnord is 100% correct here.

 

[joobz]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

That's an interesting analogy.
A gun is a tool. A tool specifically designed to take the life of another.
Religion is a tool. A tool specifically designed to take the will of another.

 

[Egg]

Well stalin never publicly claimed that he killed people base on thier religious beliefs.
But the priest stated in court that he raped his daughter for religious reasons.

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.

I'm sure he could have used different excuses but he didn't. And in the past religion has been used as an excuse for great attrocities. You can argue all you want about the veracity of thier Scottsmanhood, but the fact remains that they did these things under the flag of religion.

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.

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

I've heard of people killing other people because they believe in a different god, but can you tell me of an incident where an athiest killed a religious person because the they believed in a god?

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

 

[sinclairmcevoy]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

I agree with this sentiment. Saying that religion is wrong because of this person's actions is inaccurate.

 

[articulett]

I'm with you joobz--
to me people go out of their way to divert the blame from the thing they want to believe is blameless.

All rhetoric.

There are atrocities committed in the name of faith that would not have been committed if not for the faith. The same goes with guns.

And since we can't predict who will use which tools badly, and we know that apologists will always rush to protect the "tool" that makes them feel "safe" and "powerful"-- I'd like to see both of these sacred cows and skewered.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

And statistics that show that violence goes up when a gun or religion with violent scripture is involved are completely irrelevant? When households with guns have many times the number of suicides and accidents than households without them, it's still not the gun's fault?

I agree with you, joobz, it's a interesting analogy indeed. Although of course religion possession is quite less damaging than firearms possession and most people who have religions don't have them to hurt people.

What religion teaches that rape and incest are ok?

Christianity and Judaism, for one. It's in the Bible, buddy.

 

[Fnord]

Quote:
What religion teaches that rape and incest are ok?

Christianity and Judaism, for one. It's in the Bible, buddy.

Please cite the relevant Bible passages.

 

[joobz]

I'm with you joobz--
to me people go out of their way to divert the blame from the thing they want to believe is blameless.

All rhetoric.

There are atrocities committed in the name of faith that would not have been committed if not for the faith. The same goes with guns.

And since we can't predict who will use which tools badly, and we know that apologists will always rush to protect the "tool" that makes them feel "safe" and "powerful"-- I'd like to see both of these sacred cows and skewered.

I wouldn't agree with me too much, as I actually agree with the point that Fnord was making. I was simply giggling at the analogy.

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.

Obviously we are discussing issues which are for the most part black and white. But what happens on cases which aren't clear cut. Why is it acceptable to say "Gays can't marry cause god said so"? If we allow that reasoning to stand, why can't it extend to other areas? Who then becomes the arbitor of god's will? After all, we know that that can vary greatly.

It's not an easy issue, but the argument becomes when does the exercise of personal religious beliefs start to infringe upon the rights of others. That balancing act is what all the legal issues are all about and I think we've been doing a pretty good job up til now. Afterall, it seems that this court didn't accept this defense. So, I don't see any real issue here.

 

[This Guy]

When religions are outlawed, only outlaws wil....

Never mind

 

[Moochie]

This is absolutely disgusting.



http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20080403060414774C774861


And that is why religion is a problem.

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.

 

[m_huber]

This man read the Bible, and from that reading concluded that the best thing that he could do would be to have sex with his daughter. "I would not sleep with my daughter unless it were for religious reasons" implies that the problem is with religion. He was a self-proclaimed pastor, but then, most are. It is also moot that the court didn't buy his defense. This man did what he did because of religion.

Religion overrides good sense. This is a perfect illustration of how "God told me to do it" justifies any action. And God only tells people to do things when they have belief in some God; AKA: religion.

 

[Madalch]

I think that's probably right too, but would he have seen the church as a potential enemy had he been a believer?

If Stalin had been Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish, he would have seen the Orthodox Church as a potential enemy.

Had been orthodox, he would have considered the Catholic Church, the Protestants, the Jews, and the Muslims all as potential enemies. He would have also bent the Orthodox Church into a tool of the state, with priests who didn't volunteer to become informants finding themselves ministering in Yakutsk.

 

[Moochie]

Blaming religion for atrocities is like blaming firearms for murder.

In both cases, it is the tool used, and not the user of the tool, that is blamed for the crime.

In other words, religion doesn't rape little girls, people do.

And when you reduce the availability of guns, down comes the homicide rate.

M.

 

[Fnord]

And when you reduce the availability of guns, down comes the homicide rate.

... for firearms only. It does nothing to reduce the homicide rate for stabbings, strangulations, blunt force trauma, and other forms of homicide. It may even serve to raise the homicide rates for those other forms.

 

[Verde]

My point was only as a comparison to the suggestion that the guy in the OP did what he did because of religion - as if religion by its nature leads to such atrocities.

I think the point here is that the perp EXPLICITLY invoked his religious beliefs to justify his vile actions.

 

[RobRoy]

I'm with you joobz--
to me people go out of their way to divert the blame from the thing they want to believe is blameless.

All rhetoric.

While I can agree with your initial statement, that does not render their arguments "all rhetoric". Religion, any religion, is appealing because it gives adherents a moral high ground from which they feel they can dictate, or justify, behavior. After all, my god has the corner market on truth, so your god must be wrong and therefore inferior or even false.

From there, it's just a small skip from showing someone the "error of their ways" to "ridding the world of false gods/teachings".

Most religions are based on a "do unto others" kind of policy that forms the basis of their belief structure, no matter how easy it is to slip into the justification for violence in any form. Religion certainly helps provide a nice slippery slope, but that's a fault of adherents, rather than the religious basics.

There are atrocities committed in the name of faith that would not have been committed if not for the faith. The same goes with guns.

Now, this is rhetoric. There is no way to know if any given atrocity would or would not have occurred if religion hadn't been present to provide a justification, no matter how lame or weak, and that goes the same with guns.

By the same measure, we could just as easily say that there are atrocities that have been prevented because of the involvement of religion or faithful adherents . . . or guns.

Seems like both of these sacred cows can cut in either direction.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

This man read the Bible, and from that reading concluded that the best thing that he could do would be to have sex with his daughter. "I would not sleep with my daughter unless it were for religious reasons" implies that the problem is with religion. He was a self-proclaimed pastor, but then, most are. It is also moot that the court didn't buy his defense. This man did what he did because of religion.

Religion overrides good sense. This is a perfect illustration of how "God told me to do it" justifies any action. And God only tells people to do things when they have belief in some God; AKA: religion.

This would make every work of fiction where a murder is described evil too, if it inspired a copy-cat killer, or even made someone think about murder. Think anyone ever read a work of fiction, and then tried to copy the crime? Does that make the book and author of the book bad?