People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

Well, let's make the situation even scarier...it is one thing when some crank idiot on a website spills his/her bigotry for all to see..but how about when the US senate majority leader does (though in a slightly more subdued fashion)http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030630_28.htmlThe irony in this article is that Bill Frist criticizes the Supreme Court as intrusive into the private lives of people for claiming the state governments do not have the right to be intrusive in the lives private lives of people.I also like the part about the union of man and woman being a sacrament...considering the divorce rate and the amount of infidelity ...marriage looks more and more like a tax shelter

quote:

---

We've all heard the familiar creationist tactic of blaming Darwin for the horrors of totalitarianism, eugenics, the breakdown of society in general, etc. It's an indisputable fact that many have used the theory of evolution by natural selection to excuse prejudice, the sterilization of 'inferior' people, or brutal socioeconomic theories.

​

I'm sure you agree with me that Darwin's theory had absolutely nothing to do with any of the above, but the line cuts both ways. I'm not going to blame religion for the heinous acts committed in its name.

---

There is a difference between the misuse of the ToE and heinous acts perpetrated in the name of religion, however.The ToE is being inappropriately applied in the examples you gave above. It was misused to justify bigotry and prejudice in political and social movements. The actual Biological ToE does not imply or advocate any of the misuses you mention. No scientific theory prescribes any action; no scientific theory makes any moral statement.By contrast, the very point of religion is to prescribe action; to tell you what you should do, what you should think, how you should live. It exists, in fact, to make moral statements.At the time of the Inquisition or the Crusades, in the minds of Operation Rescue Christians, the southern white church's support of the KKK, and in the inaction and complicity of the Pope during the Holocaust, violence and murder are perfectly justified, in their minds, by their interpretation of their religious books and teachings.So, I very much DO blame religion for the atrocities it has perpetrated. I don't buy the excuse in the aftermath that "They weren't REAL Christians/Muslims/etc.", particularly when a large number of the group share the idea, for example, that the Infidels should be converted to Christianity or die, like during the Crusades.I do know that religion has done much good in the world as as well, but it has done just as much evil; no more or less of either than other human institutions.

quote:

---

So, I very much DO blame religion for the atrocities it has perpetrated.

---

And I repeat, no religion has ever perpetrated anything. We can only ascribe motives to human beings.I'm not religious, and I deplore the way religion has been used to take advantage of the gullible. I fully agree that religion differs from rationality in its essence: it's meant to be accepted and not understood. It sickens me that the I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam is still convincing people to suffer and/or make others suffer.However, I fail to see how this relieves from responsibility the actual human culprits of genocide, holy wars, suicide bombings, abortion-clinic shootings, and bigotry spouted from the pulpit. Blaming the ideology effectively exonerates the perpetrator. The vast majority of 'believers' are far too apathetic and docile to be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between religious thinking (irrational as it is) and reprehensible brutality.

These Radical Righters are truly scary. He's perfectly free to think that marriage is a sacrament, but since when is he allowed to impose that religious belief upon the entire citizenry in the form of a constitutional ammendment?The people who want this country to be Christian are as anti-American as they come.

quote:

---

And I repeat, no religion has ever perpetrated anything. We can only ascribe motives to human beings.

​

I'm not religious, and I deplore the way religion has been used to take advantage of the gullible. I fully agree that religion differs from rationality in its essence: it's meant to be accepted and not understood. It sickens me that the I'll-pay-you-back-after-you-die scam is still convincing people to suffer and/or make others suffer.

​

However, I fail to see how this relieves from responsibility the actual human culprits of genocide, holy wars, suicide bombings, abortion-clinic shootings, and bigotry spouted from the pulpit.

---

Never said it did. I wasn't talking about individual behavior.My purpose was to show the difference between the misuse of a scientific theory for a social or political purpose for which it was never intended, and the heinous acts perpetrated in the name of religion, with religion's main purpose being to prescribe moral behavior and attitudes.In other words, to use a scientific theory as a justification for behavior or morality is always a misuse.To use religion in the same way is the very point of religion. Religion is not being misused in these cases. It's being used in ways that some people find immoral.

quote:

---

Blaming the ideology effectively exonerates the perpetrator.

---

It does?

quote:

---

The vast majority of 'believers' are far too apathetic and docile to be used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between religious thinking (irrational as it is) and reprehensible brutality.

---

I disagree. It is the apathy in the face of members of your groups' brutality that allows the brutality to continue.Let us not discount communal reinforcement:communal reinforcement - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com"Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show aficionados, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties."

quote:

---

...[R]eligion's main purpose [is] to prescribe moral behavior and attitudes.

---

That's a definition that I'm sure many share, but personally I regard religion as the original form of feel-good entertainment. It allows its followers to define 'God' or 'truth' or 'justice' or any other term in whatever manner seems convenient at any time. Scriptural authority is so broad and contradictory that it can be used to support virtually any conclusion. Religious people base their morals and behavior on whatever basis they feel 'religion' justifies, regardless of how consistent they are in their reasoning.

quote:

---

It is the apathy in the face of members of your groups' brutality that allows the brutality to continue.

---

Our primate heritage makes us place high priority on defining ingroups and outgroups, choosing with whom to identify and whom to demonize. How convenient that your ingroup does not include religionists, since they are the ones you blame for brutality or the tacit acceptance of brutality. That way 'we' don't have to identify with people who are directly responsible for brutality or those who unknowingly aid and abet them.

quote:

---

Our primate heritage makes us place high priority on defining ingroups and outgroups, choosing with whom to identify and whom to demonize. How convenient that your ingroup does not include religionists, since they are the ones you blame for brutality or the tacit acceptance of brutality. That way 'we' don't have to identify with people who are directly responsible for brutality or those who unknowingly aid and abet them.

---

Please stop trying to shoehorn what I actually said into what you would have liked me to have meant.You said that I wanted to excuse religious people for brutal acts, and that you did not blame religion for the acts perpetrated by it's followers, much like you do not blame people for misusing the ToE.Do you or do you not agree that using religion in a way in which it was meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior, is DIFFERENT from USING scientific theories in a way they were NEVER meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior?

quote:

---

Do you or do you not agree that using religion in a way in which it was meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior, is DIFFERENT from USING scientific theories in a way they were NEVER meant to be used; to prescribe morality and moral behavior?

---

Yes. I absolutely agree. However, my point was that blaming religion is different than blaming people for their use or misuse of it. My revulsion for Christian abortion-clinic snipers is due to their murderous behavior, not their ideology. Since there's nothing to suggest that religion in itself leads to such behavior, I see no cause and effect there.

quote:

---

You said that I wanted to excuse religious people for brutal acts, and that you did not blame religion for the acts perpetrated by it's followers, much like you do not blame people for misusing the ToE.

---

That's not what I said. You said you blame religion for 'perpetrating' crimes, and I feel that you're de-emphasizing the responsibility of the human perpetrator for his own crime. And I still don't understand why I should blame anyone else for aiding and abetting him simply on the basis of association.Furthermore, I said I DO blame people who misuse the ToE, but taking Darwinism in vain isn't the issue: the real crimes are the eugenics, the genocide, the discrimination.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-30-2003]

As a self-described religious person, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.It's a lot easier to misuse a gun than say, a garbage can or a can opener. It's easier to misuse a sharp kitchen knife than it is to misuse a spoon.Misusing religion may be the responsibility of the person(s) who is/are misusing it, but religion has a tendency towards equipping/encouraging its adherents to misuse it. It promotes a "there's a certain truth and I know it" attitude that leads to intolerance and prejudice and leads a person to justify all his/her more negative desires, such as vengeance and dominance.I do not think this means there is no truth or that truth cannot be known or that all religion is bad. There are temptations inherent in owning a gun. The owner must not only avoid murder, he must avoid carelessness. It is not only the driver who purposely runs down a pedestrian who is guilty, but a drunk driver who accidentally runs down a pedestrian is just as guilty (or at least almost), because of carelessness.The person who takes up religion had better know what he's getting into, because while it may encourage some morality, it is a powerful temptation to immorality, hypocrisy, and cruelty as well.

TL, very, very well said.I think you've covered it in a few paragraphs what the rest of us hadn't gotten so clear in pages of posts.Thank you.As being areligious and even anti I would of course agree that there is the danger in that kind of thinking (or not thinking sometimes) but that doesn't say that the dangerous side has to win out that is in the hands (or minds) of the individuals.

quote:

---

The person who takes up religion had better know what he's getting into, because while it may encourage some morality, it is a powerful temptation to immorality, hypocrisy, and cruelty as well.

---

Yes. Is it not therefore all the more worrying that mosdt theists are indoctrinated as children, rather than being people who "take up religion" knowingly and with forethought?I'm afraid it is not adequate to say "it is ultimately the individuals responsisiblity" becuase EVERYTHING is; that argument merely implies that we can not or should not criticise institutions becuase it, apparently, lets the individual off the hook. Except I don't think it does in any sense - the dogma is itself the work of individuals, the propagation of it is too. If it is true and normal, as alleged, that we seek to identify Us and Them, then the specific theory of Us and Them is very topical and not only an appropriate subject for criticism, but one that it is imperative to criticise. It is, after all, going to be used as the basis for collective action and therefore we have a colective interest in its veracity and or utility. It is not adequate to defend the dogma by asserting individual culpability; that is only part of the point, and IMO the lesser part.[This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-01-2003]

MrHambre writes: But in fact the bible does condone acts of violence and teaches its believers that it is their responsibility to act in the proscribed manner. case in point:In reference to worshipping "other" gods or doing evil in the eyes of the lord (which I am sure isn't limited to the 10 commandments)Dt 17:5 "...take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."Dt 13:5 "That prophet or dreamer must be put to the death"While I agree that we must not confuse the acts with the religion (ie. if a book tells you to kill someone that doesn't excuse it) I disagree that there is nothing in the religion that lends itself to such behavior, when it actually condones it. It tells people to kill those who do evil in the eyes of the lord. The contradiction that occurs, at least for those living in the U.S., is that our laws prohibit such acts. The association to me is clear, if you believe in the bible as a literal truth then believing in stoning those who do evil isn't far behind. If we had a less secular government and we attributed our laws to the bible the laws may actually reflect those teachings. There are plenty of nations that do proscribe their laws according to their religious belief. I think what Schraf is trying to point out is that science doesn't tell you to kill while the bible does. There are people who are so infused with their religious belief's that they think they are doing gods work by killing, (ie. abortion clinic killings), or the stoning deaths in various countries for adultary.

quote:

---

Is it not therefore all the more worrying that mosdt theists are indoctrinated as children, rather than being people who "take up religion" knowingly and with forethought?

---

My children are as indoctrinated on the dangers of religion as they are on the benefits of it.The reason I had so much problems with our other conversation is because you made continual assumptions about me, my kids, and my community based on your idea of what belief in God means. You also assumed that my opposition to rock and roll meant all sorts of other things (including being against dancing and music in general) that were not accurate, and nothing I said made you back off at all. I was just a "theist," exactly like every other theist, and everything you said was about "these theists," and how they act and what they believe.I don't need you to agree with me or like the way I live, but it seemed silly for me to continue a conversation with someone who had a blanket condemnation for a section of humanity that includes the majority of humans, without any indication that he found one different than any other.

TL, this isn't part of the thread. If you guys want to start slinging mud around, do it somewhere else.

quote:

---

Is it not therefore all the more worrying that most theists are indoctrinated as children, rather than being people who "take up religion" knowingly and with forethought?

---

This isn't really fair. What else are people supposed to do? Children need some kind of morality when they are growing up - and something to base a system of morals on. Why shouldn't it be God?The Ten Commandments are words to live your life by, more or less. If everyone followed them the world would be pretty happy (just so you know I'm not including the first two, as they don't apply to everyone).If something tells kids 'Thou shalt not steal... thou shalt not kill... etc' who cares where it originally came from?The Rock Hound

quote:

---

This isn't really fair. What else are people supposed to do? Children need some kind of morality when they are growing up - and something to base a system of morals on.

---

I think you hit it right on the nose here. All children are indoctrinated in some set of values. There is no way to avoid it. Contra's objection to indoctrination could be applied to any child-rearing at all, which is silly.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com