Why it is wrong to NOT attack religion

[eggrole1]

People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.

Religion is the enabler in these conflicts. I realize that land is far more important than religion, but as I think someone stated, it is religion that is the gloss that sells war to the masses. Without a diety to commit wars in the name of, people might think twice before fighting, and the people in power don't want that.

the second point is semantics. i use the term attack as a broad stroke painting everything from outright statements to "you are wrong" to persuasive debates. Same end, different means.

If a few fundamentalist politicians commit an atrocity, and supposedly do so "in the name of religion", why am I grouped in along with them? How many people have I killed in the name of religion? Or the majority of other believers, for that matter? How many atheists do you suppose are fighting and killing as we speak... or have done so in wars since past? Religion isn't the problem here... extremists are. Why not fight them, as opposed to entire religions who are not inherently violent?

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

You stated earlier that attacking someones choices that they've made in life is "fair game." How can you "respect a person as a person" if you feel it's fair game to attack the choices they make in life? That's not respect in any sense of the word.

fundamentalists in power do not speak for you I am sure, but they use religious leverage to get into office and then as the excuse to do terrible things. The fact that you never killed 'in the name of' your religion does little to ease my mind in the long term. The fact of the matter is if one day you woke up and looked for a reason to kill someone, god let's you off the hook in many cases and even condones it for your 'enemies'. If I looked for a reason to kill someone, outside of a fight or flight situation I hope I could not find one.

the point i am making again is the religion is the enabler. wars would probably still happen, but with either less frequency or for what they are, greed/money/power driven. If countries and groups had to stand up to the consequences and not say "it is ok, it was in the name of god" they might think twice before fighting.

Real fast also.. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin Russian Orthodix, Manson used drugs and references to himself being a god to convince the others to do what they did, and I have no knowledge of the Columbine's beliefs. Even if your argument holds true that the religious leaders do not speak for the masses, you can see that in 4 "events" you posed, 3 of them had religious backing, and the 4th an unknown to me, but I will assume they were atheist until otherwise found.

[eggrole1]

Exactly! Wars start with greed, even though governments say they are for other reasons. The Crusades weren't even purely about saving heathen souls... they were about control of important trade routes; it was just easier to shove the idea down the throats of the peasants that they were being conscripted for a holy war, not for a trade war of which they, as lowly serfs, would never see the spoils.

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. That is sort of the point I am getting at. All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them. When one can teach someone a belief system, directly or indirectly one can create a "get out of jail free" thought in just about anyone as long as one can sell them on a higher power. Placing blame to the scapegoated religion for heinous crimes against the world.

[stinkyattic]

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. ... All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them..

That's pretty much exactly what I said in my post...

[Coelho]

The Crusades were not at all about saving heathen souls. That is sort of the point I am getting at. All these bad things done in the name of religion might not have happened if people knew the real reasons behind them.

I dont think so... if there were not religion, and everybody were atheist, cynical, rational or whatever, it would be OK to say "lets take our land and gold back", cause there would not be need to justify this acts with some religious talk.
Without religion, which says that its wrong to kill, to steal, and to be greedy, people would be more willing to do such things, in name of the honour, or the power, or the wealth, or whatever, instead of in name of religion. The reasons would be different, but the results would be the same.
The problem is not the religion itself, but the irreligious leaders that use religion to fulfill their evil goals. Only a nasty rational cynical atheist would think about using peoples beliefs to helping its own purposes. Anybody with a bit of religiousness would not think about doing such things.
So, the biggest problem of the religion is the irreligious ones.

[Mr. Clandestine]

Real fast also.. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin Russian Orthodix, Manson used drugs and references to himself being a god to convince the others to do what they did, and I have no knowledge of the Columbine's beliefs. Even if your argument holds true that the religious leaders do not speak for the masses, you can see that in 4 "events" you posed, 3 of them had religious backing, and the 4th an unknown to me, but I will assume they were atheist until otherwise found.

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic. He was baptized in a Catholic church at a very young age, and apparently was never excommunicated, but he was not a follower of Christianity. I'll freely admit that he was one of the zealots that you speak of, using supposed religion to justify horrible actions, but in terms of core beliefs, mainline Nazis were a mix of Darwinist secularists, with a very small amount of Christian ideologies mixed in for good measure. Using certain religious scriptures to justify anti-religious actions doesn't make that person religious. Otherwise Richard Dawkins could be considered a secular theist, which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense! Joseph Stalin was a self-proclaimed atheist, another supporter of Darwinism, and was extremely harsh on Russian churches at the time due to his lack of faith in any religion. Stalin didn't believe in a God, and made many public statements stating so. The Soviet dictator said on one occasion, "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." There are many, many more of Stalin's statements that mirror this one.

As for me becoming a murderer because my God supposedly allows me to "kill my enemies", that's off-base, too. A certain set of commandments that I hold dear explicitly prohibit murder, amongst other things. If I wanted to reinterpret scriptures to suit homicidal tendencies, I could. But then again, anyone can twist words around to justify horrible actions against another. They certainly don't have to be religious works, it's just that sadly, on several occasions, they have been.

The only point I'm trying to make, and have been trying to make, is that humans have a propensity to become violent. Religious humans, or otherwise. I could point out many Shintoists and Buddhists who lived during Feudal periods in Japan and all throughout Asia who murdered countless serfs in pious fits of rage and dominance, but I wouldn't point the finger at Shinto or Buddhism for the heinous acts of a fanatical few. Rather, I'd point the finger at the fanatical few themselves. But, that's just me. I don't see the need to blame their religious beliefs for the fact that they themselves were maniacal and homicidal lunatics. They're to blame, not their implied religious beliefs.

Psychotic people enable themselves... they're not enabled by religion. If they do try to justify their actions using religion, then in most instances, they're taking their religious doctrines out of context... well, most of them. Some religions do appear to be inherently evil, and state such evil tendencies in their holiest of doctrines. In my opinion, of course. But I can only name one religion that justifies violence through "holy scripture", and to try and keep things civil, I'll decline to mention the religion by name.

[mackey33]

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic.

I'd like to evoke Godwin's law here...just for shits and grins.

[Born To Stone]

I used to dislike religion a lot because a lot of faith is put into something that is unproven. Plus we were made to sing Christian songs at school when I was a kid, the words of which I did not agree with (we changed them anyway lol ). However, unless religion is being pushed on someone else or used to persecute I don't really have a problem with it.

It's all very nice saying it isn't proven but no one has ever disproven it either so they are just as right as anyone else until we know otherwise.

Also, most religions do teach very good ethics and often have a great deal of philosophy behind them, also a lot of art and culture has been derived from religion.

BTW I'm not religious at all, I'd call myself agnostic if anything...

[Mr. Clandestine]

I'd like to evoke Godwin's law here...just for shits and grins.

This isn't a debate...

As it stands, you took what I said out of context... effectively rendering anything you have to say about it baseless and without merit. I also used more than Hitler to make my point, which if you were actually reading, you'd have seen wasn't intended to be an analogy in the first place. But rather, a correlation to what the OP claimed about religion starting wars.

Go shit and grin over that. :thumbsup:

[swice1]

The sooner we keep telling everyone that religion is wrong and brainwash the better. What is so wrong about telling the truth? Our world would have less of these pointless wars and all live as one. For you Christians, how many animals do you think are religious? Humans are just another part of the worlds evolutionary creatures. Wake up.

[eggrole1]

Hitler was NOT a Roman Catholic.

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.


I also don't really understand this people are inherently bad stuff either. Christianity seems to love to say we are all bad until we accept god. What reasoning is there to assume man is inherently evil? I mean every person I know who is religious or not have the same feelings on not killing someone. I mean, are you just not killing people b/c the bible says so? If the bible were just erased from history, you'd be killing people because there was nothing that said you shouldn't?

I am not saying without religion it would be all champagne in the world. Not for a second do I think wars wouldn't still break out over things like land and resources. I would rather have wars over land than wars over religion any day. As I said before it then sort of holds the leaders behind the war personally responsible. Think about it like this. Over 100 years you could have 5 wars over land, or 2 over land and 4 over religion.

I guess a good way to put it would be that I think religion does more harm than good. Another case where the cure is worse than the (perceived) disease.