RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 7:22:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It was in response to someone who said alcohol causes deaths whereas one's religion never does What was actually asked was: which is more dangerous in actuality, practicing religious beliefs or consuming alcohol? quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I chose to raise *an example like the Holocaust* ...trying to point out that religion can in fact be responsible for deaths. Now the Holocaust was a religious pogrom? K.

jlf1961 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 7:24:30 PM)
To paraphrase many of the televangelists: "I have the word of god spoken unto me to tell you. God wants you to send most of your money to my church so that I can build a cathedral of steel and glass with gold statues of the angels, build a university that indoctrinates the weak minded to the word of god as he has spoken to me" Organized religion is a freaking joke.

MercTech -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 7:36:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I chose to raise an example like the Holocaust. I was trying to point out that religion can in fact be responsible for deaths. Now the Holocaust was a religious pogrom? K. Hmm, fanatical National Socialism did have a lot of trappings of a cult. <grin> The Holocaust was more a perverted version of eugenics taken to the extreme. They should have stayed away from genocide and stuck with Project Lebensborn trying to breed supermen. But whackadoodles were in charge.

jlf1961 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 8:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Hmm, fanatical National Socialism did have a lot of trappings of a cult. <grin> The Holocaust was more a perverted version of eugenics taken to the extreme. They should have stayed away from genocide and stuck with Project Lebensborn trying to breed supermen. But whackadoodles were in charge. Speaking of Eugenics, wasn't the Eugenics wars supposed to have started by now? Where the hell is Khan Singh anyway?

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 8:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I don't think it will be some mainstream religions views on homosexuals that will be their possible eventual demise. I believe there is just as much discrimination among atheists against gays as there is among the religious. I believe organized religion's problem lie in their inability to change as fast as society is changing. Science and world communication makes it harder to isolate societies and stifle the free exchange of ideas. I think the only way religion can survive is to embrace the core values of their teachings and scrap the words of inspired men living in ancient societies. Those words no longer translate directly to today's world and its problems. Butch you are dead spot wrong on that, atheists in general support same sex marriage and gay rights in large percentages, they are up there with non orthodox Jews and liberal christians.Every poll, every serious study on attitudes towards gays shows those that are religious tend to be more homophobic. If you want some proof, go to places in Africa, where if it isn't Islam, it is Catholic Bishops and/or evangelicals stoking horrible oppression against gays. In most of Europe, gay rights are a fait accompli, but go to Poland, where the Catholic Church is both powerful and is a lot like evangelical Christians in the US, and you see one of the most oppressive governments in Europe. Russian homophobia is stoked by the Russian Orthodox church. Can Atheists be homophobes? Of course, but given that most of the prejudice against gays can be traced back to religious belief and teachings, claiming that atheists are as bigoted as religious people is kind of ludicrous, if the faith teaches that gays are shit, and someone is religious, what does that say about tendencies? Doesn't take a genius to see that people who consider themselves 'truly faithful' are gonna be a lot more bigoted against gays.

kdsub -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 8:09:53 PM)
Not gay marriage... I am talking about gays in general...Homophobia is NOT exclusive to those who are spiritual. Butch

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 8:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I cannot agree with O'Dowd, whoever he is. Religion will always be a dominant cultural feature because there will always be multitudes of people who need religion; more so than do not. Not offering derogatory assessments here but there will always be people who find solace in religion, who are true believers in a supernatural god, who fear death, who require authority and tradition, ritual and community, and whatever other reasons you may think of to yearn for mystical experience. The secular world cannot fulfill those needs. Nor will religions become more liberal as modernity demands. We are witnessing a backlash against secular modernism that grows in proportion. The more "personal freedom" that evolves from modernity the stronger the conservative backlash we witness amongst the Islamist, Evangelical, and Charismatic churches. Modernity and the illusion of personal freedom has weakened the liberal congregations and strengthened the orthodox congregations. O'Dowd is a mistaken prophet, imo. No, Vincent, you are wrong in your final assessment of religion. The 'backlast' against secular modernism is real, but it is the death thrashes of orthodox religion. Despite all the blather about the power of evangelicals and conservative Christians, they are losing the battle, the more they yell and scream, the more apparent they have lost. The GOP is starting to realize it, they are getting to the point where they realize the social conservatives not only don't have a pot to piss in, but are costing them serious votes by people who might otherwise be attracted to the GOP economic agenda. The kind of orthodox religious belief you talk about is the province mostly of older people, if you look at people below 40, even among those who still claim they are religious, they simply are not attracted to the religious right attempt to force society to follow their beliefs, the GOP's stats among the young, those in their 30's and 20s, is dismal, and the whole religious right thing is a major turn off. Most people in this country already have a negative view of Islam because its vision of things seems so medieval, and all I have to say is as time goes on, even an old stalwart like the Catholic church is hemorraging people, and it isn't because the church is liberal. JPII and Ratzinger did everything they could to overturn Vatican II, claiming it would 'revitalize' the church, and instead it turned people off. 70% of Catholics disagree with the way the church has turned, where especially in the US turned it into being anti gay, anti abortion and anti sex (talking about the Bishops here), and they paid a price; it might have pleased the orthdox Catholics, but they are maybe 20-30% of the church, and they also are much, much older. It isn't that religion is going to be seen as racism, it is the kind of religion we have sadly seen too much, the nastiness of the evangelicals with their push to put things back into the medieval period, not just their attitude towards gays and women, but their push to force their beliefs in other ways, like school prayer and in trying to change school curicula to be 'faith friendly' (I just read something that claimed that something like 25% of the schools in this country either don't teach evolution in school, or claim it is an 'unproven conjecture' that is not the same as the theory of relativity). Young people especially know better, and they don't exactly see with a kind eye people stupid enough to believe the earth is 6000 years old.....the conservative backlash is from smaller and smaller groups of people and as a historical force in some ways is very much like those openly espousing racism, it is a dwindling group. Where he is wrong is he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Catholic and Protestant clergy who helped feed the hate in Northern Ireland don't represent the best of religion (nor were they entirely to blame for the mess there), not are they it. He is right that the extreme right wing church, of the Vatican and the Curia, of the evangelicals, with their often hateful, nasty rhetoric, will more and more be seen like the rants of racists. The US Catholic Church made themselves look like absolute fascists when they censored a group of nuns whose offense was helping the poor and weak rather than ranting and raving about gays and abortion, and they also made themselves look bad when they were threatening politicians who were pro choice or sympathetic to gays, yet who never, ever threatened the right wing politicians preaching the creed of Ayn Rand or who wanted to slash programs for the poor to give tax breaks to the well off, it made them look like they were/are, out of touch fascists more concerned with political power than the real workings of the faith. That sledgehammer religion might appeal to the very conservative, mostly older people, the way that religion is Russia is tied directly into Putin's thug state, appealing to the people who want/need the iron fist,but it doesn't to others. The churches already have died in Europe, in Italy 15% of people even bother going to church, pretty much the same elsewhere in Western Europe, the Anglican church is dead as well, and it is because the church basically means nothing to them, and a lot of it stems from a church that is trying to live in the past (it also didn't help that many Christians walked away after WWII, when they saw what the Holocaust was and what role religion played in that horrible event, either in routine Anti semitism or in the inaction that allowed millions to go to their deaths). What Dowd is leaving out is that people still have a need and desire to believe. There is a reason Francis became Pope, I suspect that a lot of people realized that the JPII/Benedict medievalism was killing the church, and take a look at what Francis is doing, he is emphasizing helping people, helping the poor, criticizing the excesses of wealth and exploitation of the poor, he is saying that gays may be sinners, but we all are, rather than calling them child molesters and pedophiles the way the church leaders had before this; and he likewise he said that sexuality was not all the church was, that it had a broader mission....and while it doesn't seem to be bringing people back to church, he seems to have struck a chord with people, and rightfully so. Dogma and purity of belief is bupkus, what gets people to feel something is when they see it has meaning in their lives.Liberal churches fail for a different reason, while they encourage questioning and finding your own path, they often fail because they are so caught up in 'liberation theology' that they forget about their own people; they welcome gays and trans people as a cause, but then forget these are people who have had real sadness in their lives, problems, who are looking for a church that is a home, rather than a collection of causes, so people drift from them, too. It is interesting that the fastest growing group is neither atheists nor 'true believers', which is where the future is going, it is people who believe, but find the truth outside any particular religion or faith, they take from all. This is the fastest growing group, and they tend to be a lot less in your face, and certainly not socially conservative, and this is what I think is going to be the real face of future faith. I think churches will exist, of all kinds, I think there will be mosques and churches and temples and whatnot, but that most people will be practicing their own faith, and it won't be akin to racism, more like what it should be, personal belief.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 8:42:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I don't share your pessimism however. In most Western countries, the trend has been that more highly educated the general populace is, the less religiously inclined it is. Ireland is a good example of this trend. (The US appears to be somewhat of an exception to this trend). So, as time goes by the ability of the religious to impose their beliefs on the rest of us is diminished. These attempts will never disappear totally - indeed there are areas of social policy where religions contribute positively and their contribution should therefore be welcomed. But on the whole, I don't see any reason to suppose that this trend will be stopped or reversed. The difficulty in identifying trends lies in sorting definitions of what constitutes religious identification. According to this data the population of Christians and non-believers is shrinking worldwide while the population of Muslims is increasing. I suspect much of this derives from the observed phenomenon that as education and industrial prosperity grow within a population the birth rate falls. In Europe then it is not so much a falling away from Christianity as it is about producing smaller numbers of Christian babies. My pessimism is grounded in the observation that religion has been an unrivaled historical instrument of control. It has a binding power, a patriotic glue, stronger than any nationalist ideology. For the far right in America the Constitution is a document of biblical proportions and so the power advantage goes to those who successfully equate Christianity with Patriotism. No, at least if you measure belief by going to church. In Europe about 10-15% of the people bother going to church, even in the 'heavily Catholic countries' (with the exception of Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe), in Ireland church attendance has plummeted, and among young people it is practically non existent. So it isn't just about numbers, it is that people have turned from church and presumably belief as well.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 9:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It was in response to someone who said alcohol causes deaths whereas one's religion never does What was actually asked was: which is more dangerous in actuality, practicing religious beliefs or consuming alcohol? quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I chose to raise *an example like the Holocaust* ...trying to point out that religion can in fact be responsible for deaths. Now the Holocaust was a religious pogrom? K. One of the problems in citing the holocaust and the evils of religion is primarily it is cited wrong. The Holocaust was not the work of any one religious group, it was not a pogrom the way that the Inquisition was. If you cite it as a direct religious pogrom, you end up covering for the very real things you can stick religion, specifically Christianity, with in the holocaust. If you say "religion caused the 6 million Jews, 50,000 Gays, 100,000 Gypsies" to be put to death, it is pretty easy to show that is idiotic and it 'lets religion' off the hook. However, if you look at the roots of the holocaust and how it was carried out, religions role stands out like a sore thumb.... -Anti Semitism was a big part of Christianity in the 1900 years leading up to the holocaust, it was rooted in and around the faith. The book of Matthew directly blames the Jews for the death of Christ, and the church and its leaders were not exactly preaching platitudes about the Jews, either. Jews were preached from the pulpit as being evil, blood libels were common and on good friday a raucous, ugly, anti semitic homily, or a good passion play highlighting the supposed Jewish role in Christ's death, would turn crowds into instant pogroms. The roots of the holocaust didn't happen with Hitler in the 1920's, it wasn't like German society went from loving the Jews, anti semitism was part of the social fabric, which had been put together with a lot of help from Christianity over 19 centuries meant that Hitler's bile hit home. Likewise, with Anti semitic feeling so prevalent, when Jews were stripped of their rights, and then herded off to the gas chambers, with their neighbors often helping the process, you think that the anti semitism that was fanned by religion and church over 19 centuries wasn't involved in them looking the other way or not caring? It is interesting to note that in Scandinavia, where anti semtism, especially in the churches, tended to be a lot more subdued and the societies more tolerant, the record with Jews was a lot better. -It shouldn't come as a shock that likewise gays were a group sent to the gas chambers in relatively large numbers, and that they were the target of hate and disdain from religion....... -likewise, the gypsies were not exactly embraced by the Catholic Church or any of the european churches, they often were the subject of sermons about shiftless, evil people (and before anyone wants to challenge it , forget it, my mother in law and other people who grew up in pre war Eastern Europe directly told me this was common practice in churches. They even heard preached that the gypsies were the ones who made the nails that put Christ on the Cross, which was a common anti gypsy belief that they re-inforced from the pulpit. -The inaction of most churches in the face of the holocaust is history. There are a ton of excuses, but Niemoeller and others basically hit the nail on the head, that the churches simply saw Jews as an enemy, as 'the other', so weren't exactly motivated to lift a finger to help. Put it this way, the Vatican issued 16 encyclicals against various acts of the Nazis, such as euthenizing handicapped children and adults, but never issued one document about the Jews, and there are few outside church apologists who believe that Pius XII or the vatian hierarchy had any interest in helping the Jews, in part because their own personal anti semitism...after the war almost every denomination admitted that they had failed to act, and enough, that they sadly were complicit in the holocaust, with the exception of the Church, that to this day has refused to take real responsibility, and is trying to canonize the Pope who basically sat and watched 6 million being put to death and did nothing..... On the other hand, there were people, good people, who ignored the hatred of society and sadly what came out of the church, and acted, more then a few of whom who lost their lives, they were Catholic and protestant, clergy and lay people, and they read into their faith what they were supposed to, instead of spitting on the jews being herded off to the trains that would take them to the camps, they hid them, fed them, got them out of the country and otherwise tried to protect them as fellow children of God..and it is in those people where saying religion is evil fails, even if they were relatively small in number, they did the right thing, and that is where the hope is, not in the warped people who use religion as a weapon. The confessing church, where Diedrich Boenhoffer died in the camps and Niemoeller almost did, is the religion as it should have been, not the garbage running the Vatican or the heads of the Lutheran churches and other faiths, or the religious leaders in the US who helped squelch any deal to allow Jewish refugees to come to the US. The religious leaders failed in a way that those who acted did not, they truly realized they were supposed to love their brother as themselves and that even the lowest most hated person is loved by God, and that is what religion should be about.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 9:27:47 PM)
The guys comments actually ring home, for the wrong reasons.Racism is a form of a tribalism, it says 'my group is better than yours', whereas religion can be a form of tribalism, a very strong one, where in this case the tribe is defined by belonging to the right religious group who have the right beliefs. Evangelicals have the rap on them that they believe everyone but them is going to hell, and tells you so. The Catholic church proclaims that its teachings are infallible and it is the only 'true' church of Christ, thanks to apostolic succession and Jesus supposedly giving Peter the church. Muslim belief, at least among the fundies, is that it is the only faith and all others are infidel (not all Muslims believe this, not by a long shot, but it is the ones we face as enemies). The Abrahamic religions broke an old, old trend, older religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, are not 'universal' belief systems, they are quite local, and for example in Greece and Rome each area had its own Gods, they were expected to be local, and there really wasn't the sense of "I am right, you are wrong", it was taken for granted. Only when faith centralized in standard books, ie the Hebrew Scripture, the NT and the Q'ran, did this really change. For all the claims, the Romans persecuted the Christians, not because of faith per se, but because it posed a separate power structure to the Caesar and that was a no no, they were persecuted primarily as a power threat, not on religious grounds. In the Empire, there was never an attempt to force Roman gods onto others, the way that later generations of especially CHristians and Muslims would, because there wasn't this belief theirs was the only real belief. Once dogma and centralized control took over, you had tribalism to the nth degree, and that is when the problems started. Put it this way, someone firm in their faith and beliefs doesn't need to use the law as a sledgehammer, they don't need to tell others they are going to hell or scream and yell at them or tell them they are condemned, but when your belief system is based around being 'the only true one', is when trouble occurs, and that is what need to be stamped out, that instead of being strong in personal belief, they need to use it as a cudgel against others to make the tribe secure.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 9:33:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren However, if you look at the roots of the holocaust and how it was carried out, religions role stands out like a sore thumb.... The Nazis were primarily engaged in a program of ethnic/racial cleansing. In support of that effort they promulgated a long list of alleged grievances against the Jews, but these were mainly political and economic grievances in which Jewish communists and banksters featured prominently. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren you think that the anti semitism that was fanned by religion and church over 19 centuries wasn't involved in them looking the other way or not caring? Anti-semitism was not "fanned by religion," it was fanned by the remnants of a virulent brand of Christianity. On the subject of sore thumbs, however, I do agree that something here stands out like one. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 9:45:26 PM)
Two trends emerge from a reading of this thread: - Those who are defending 'religion' tend to take a very broad view of what 'religion' means. In effect, that means they are defending everything from the charitable works of the Sisters of the Poor* to the activities of Al Quada, whose devotees are practicing their religion as they see fit (no matter what one thinks of their activities). - Those less sympathetic to 'religion' tend to focus their comments on mainly organised, established religons which invariably involve a deity. This means that, for a large portion of this thread, the discussion is taking place at cross purposes. Hardly a surprise then that both sides feel misunderstood and complain about strawmen arguments being advanced by the other side. It might be helpful if posters clarified where they stand in relation to these trends in their posts, so that we all understand each other better and confusion is avoided. * The Sisters of the Poor are an order of nuns who devote their lives to selfless service to the most marginalised and ostracised sections of society - junkies street sex workers the homeless the indigents and so on. In a stark telling contrast to tele-evangelists, they maintain a very low profile, living frugally and quietly going about their business 24/7/52. IOW, they are Heroines or, if you prefer, saints.

MercTech -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 10:00:14 PM)
quote: Speaking of Eugenics, wasn't the Eugenics wars supposed to have started by now? Where the hell is Khan Singh anyway? Ah, that is not our timeline. The Nazis gave Eugenics such a bad name we haven't made the progress they did in the "Federation" timeline. We are nowhere near being able to re-sequence DNA in vitro to create supermen. We went down the wrong trouser leg of time. <anyone catch the geeky reference?> ____________________________________________________ When I say "Religion", I'm talking of an organized hierarchy with dogma, ceremony and an agenda. And the agenda part can often be political or fiscal. Having a "faith" is a different matter. It's a personal belief system. Religions start with a man of faith preaching a message. Then his followers add dogma, ceremony and agenda. The faith of Christianity became a established as a Religion with the iconoclastic schism and the Council of Nicea.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 10:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Those who are defending 'religion' tend to take a very broad view of what 'religion' means. In effect, that means they are defending everything from the charitable works of the Sisters of the Poor* to the activities of Al Quada... It might be helpful if posters clarified where they stand in relation to these trends in their posts As you've recently included me in that class, I hope you won't mind if I direct your attention to a glaring disconnect between what it pleases you to claim and what I've actually said. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata In my opinion, all of the problems caused by religion stem from dogmatic and literalistic belief in some book, not in a universal divine reality in which or in whom we are all united. And frankly, I question the validity of even calling the former religion. Would you perhaps care to explain what, exactly, is unclear about that; and how, precisely, you managed to get from there to defending the activities Al Queda? quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Those less sympathetic to 'religion' tend to focus their comments on mainly organised, established religons which invariably involve a deity. As it seems to me, it would be more accurate to say that those who appear to be "less sympathetic" to religion tend to focus their comments on excesses committed by a particular religion as exemplars of religion as a whole. K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/11/2014 11:21:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata As it seems to me, it would be more accurate to say that those who appear to be "less sympathetic" to religion tend to focus their comments on excesses committed by a particular religion as exemplars of religion as a whole. K. +1

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/12/2014 2:26:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Those who are defending 'religion' tend to take a very broad view of what 'religion' means. In effect, that means they are defending everything from the charitable works of the Sisters of the Poor* to the activities of Al Quada... It might be helpful if posters clarified where they stand in relation to these trends in their posts As you've recently included me in that class, I hope you won't mind if I direct your attention to a glaring disconnect between what it pleases you to claim and what I've actually said. As it seems to me, it would be more accurate to say that those who appear to be "less sympathetic" to religion tend to focus their comments on excesses committed by a particular religion as exemplars of religion as a whole. K. [/size My comments weren't aimed at you or any other individual, they were general comments. The "glaring disconnect" you have identified ought to emphasise that my comments weren't applicable to you but sadly you have chosen to ignore that obvious interpretation. Your misinterpretation of my comments illustrates perfectly the confusion I was trying to avoid. By any standard, AQ are "dogmatic and literalistic belief in [their interpretation of] some book" and therefore by your definition, not "religious". It seems to me that your definition excludes all and any fundamentalist sect of any religion be they AQ or Christian Biblical literalists or whatever. While it might be news to them, that's your view and you are certainly entitled to it. However, by their standards, AQ is a religious movement and its devotees regard themselves as involved in a religious enterprise ie the'defence' of their version of Islam . Similarly any fundamentalist sect of Christianity would define itself as primarily a religious entity and its devotees would probably have conniptions if advised that they weren't "religious" They have their view and they are just as entitiled to it as any one else is to theirs. These problems occur without leaving the realm of tradtitonal organised theistic religions . The problems multiply if we expand the net to include non-theistic religions. So what is a 'religion' and what's not? Who defines? Are people allowed to self define? If self definition is invalid, on what basis do others make their definitions? To me, it looks as if the goalposts are forever sliding and shifting. What should I understand to be meant by the term 'religious' and what is excluded?

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/12/2014 4:26:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What should... be meant by the term 'religious' and what is excluded? I'll give some thought to approaching the question. I've certainly touched on it often enough. K.

chatterbox24 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/12/2014 5:33:19 AM)
Are people able to self define in religion? Of course with the help from the top, God will and knowledge over self will and knowledge . I am not overly fond of the word RELIGION. It appears to bring out the negative thoughts toward who we are. Goal posts can also change, when one is more prolific in the word. The more one studies something, the more skilled they become. If one turns to the left, it is hard to see from the right.

Zonie63 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/12/2014 7:47:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Two trends emerge from a reading of this thread: - Those who are defending 'religion' tend to take a very broad view of what 'religion' means. In effect, that means they are defending everything from the charitable works of the Sisters of the Poor* to the activities of Al Quada, whose devotees are practicing their religion as they see fit (no matter what one thinks of their activities). - Those less sympathetic to 'religion' tend to focus their comments on mainly organised, established religons which invariably involve a deity. This means that, for a large portion of this thread, the discussion is taking place at cross purposes. Hardly a surprise then that both sides feel misunderstood and complain about strawmen arguments being advanced by the other side. It might be helpful if posters clarified where they stand in relation to these trends in their posts, so that we all understand each other better and confusion is avoided. I think the main trouble that I see in these types of discussions is that I often observe guilt-by-association. Even in the thread title, there's the implication that religion is as bad as racism and that it will someday become just as unacceptable. I'm not really one to defend religion all that much, but to equate it with racism seems a bit too far. Religion is a belief system, not unlike political beliefs, and any belief can become fanatical and intolerant. Even something as innocuous as sports fanaticism can turn some people into violent maniacs. Racism and nationalism are also belief systems and can also have some fanatical followers. Racism is viewed as extremely hateful and malignant for society and has been commonly associated with some of the most egregious abuses of power in our history, at least from a U.S. point of view. But since racists controlled the political and economic institutions in this country, then it was natural for those who wanted to fight racism to turn to religion. The Abolitionists and many Civil Rights leaders were quite religious. Because of this, as a U.S. citizen, I find it difficult to condemn religion as a whole. To automatically equate religion with racism seems incongruous, at least when looking at it from the viewpoint of U.S. history. Compared to Europe and the Middle East, we really haven't had the same level of religious discord in our history. We've had some, but as far as our internal struggles of any significance are concerned, they focused on other issues, not religion. Plus, since Americans are free to believe whatever they want and however they want in terms of religion, there isn't necessarily an automatic association with any "state religion" or organized religion. I'm not sure how other countries might deal with the concept, but with so many Americans being consciously raised with the idea of Separation of Church and State, many differentiate between state-level power and whatever religion does. Those who live in countries where the Church has been a manifestation and conduit of state power, they might view religion differently than those of us who don't really have that historical experience to draw upon. That may be why religion is viewed in such different ways; it's why it's difficult to define and condemn at the same time. I think the real "demon" here is intolerance, bigotry, and abuse of power, whether it's religious intolerance, racial intolerance, ethnic intolerance, or whatever the case may be. The big problem is the abuse of power, the violence, oppression - and all the consequences and internecine conflicts which go on for generations. But is it the belief itself which leads to the abuses of power, violence, and oppression which makes the belief unacceptable? Or is it just human propensity for violence, greed, etc., which would have led people to do those things anyway, with or without the belief?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/12/2014 10:49:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren One of the problems in citing the holocaust and the evils of religion is primarily it is cited wrong. The Holocaust was not the work of any one religious group, it was not a pogrom the way that the Inquisition was. If you cite it as a direct religious pogrom, you end up covering for the very real things you can stick religion, specifically Christianity, with in the holocaust. If you say "religion caused the 6 million Jews, 50,000 Gays, 100,000 Gypsies" to be put to death, it is pretty easy to show that is idiotic and it 'lets religion' off the hook. However, if you look at the roots of the holocaust and how it was carried out, religions role stands out like a sore thumb.... -Anti Semitism was a big part of Christianity in the 1900 years leading up to the holocaust, it was rooted in and around the faith. The book of Matthew directly blames the Jews for the death of Christ, and the church and its leaders were not exactly preaching platitudes about the Jews, either. Jews were preached from the pulpit as being evil, blood libels were common and on good friday a raucous, ugly, anti semitic homily, or a good passion play highlighting the supposed Jewish role in Christ's death, would turn crowds into instant pogroms. The roots of the holocaust didn't happen with Hitler in the 1920's, it wasn't like German society went from loving the Jews, anti semitism was part of the social fabric, which had been put together with a lot of help from Christianity over 19 centuries meant that Hitler's bile hit home. Likewise, with Anti semitic feeling so prevalent, when Jews were stripped of their rights, and then herded off to the gas chambers, with their neighbors often helping the process, you think that the anti semitism that was fanned by religion and church over 19 centuries wasn't involved in them looking the other way or not caring? It is interesting to note that in Scandinavia, where anti semtism, especially in the churches, tended to be a lot more subdued and the societies more tolerant, the record with Jews was a lot better. -It shouldn't come as a shock that likewise gays were a group sent to the gas chambers in relatively large numbers, and that they were the target of hate and disdain from religion....... -likewise, the gypsies were not exactly embraced by the Catholic Church or any of the european churches, they often were the subject of sermons about shiftless, evil people (and before anyone wants to challenge it , forget it, my mother in law and other people who grew up in pre war Eastern Europe directly told me this was common practice in churches. They even heard preached that the gypsies were the ones who made the nails that put Christ on the Cross, which was a common anti gypsy belief that they re-inforced from the pulpit. -The inaction of most churches in the face of the holocaust is history. There are a ton of excuses, but Niemoeller and others basically hit the nail on the head, that the churches simply saw Jews as an enemy, as 'the other', so weren't exactly motivated to lift a finger to help. Put it this way, the Vatican issued 16 encyclicals against various acts of the Nazis, such as euthenizing handicapped children and adults, but never issued one document about the Jews, and there are few outside church apologists who believe that Pius XII or the vatian hierarchy had any interest in helping the Jews, in part because their own personal anti semitism...after the war almost every denomination admitted that they had failed to act, and enough, that they sadly were complicit in the holocaust, with the exception of the Church, that to this day has refused to take real responsibility, and is trying to canonize the Pope who basically sat and watched 6 million being put to death and did nothing..... On the other hand, there were people, good people, who ignored the hatred of society and sadly what came out of the church, and acted, more then a few of whom who lost their lives, they were Catholic and protestant, clergy and lay people, and they read into their faith what they were supposed to, instead of spitting on the jews being herded off to the trains that would take them to the camps, they hid them, fed them, got them out of the country and otherwise tried to protect them as fellow children of God..and it is in those people where saying religion is evil fails, even if they were relatively small in number, they did the right thing, and that is where the hope is, not in the warped people who use religion as a weapon. The confessing church, where Diedrich Boenhoffer died in the camps and Niemoeller almost did, is the religion as it should have been, not the garbage running the Vatican or the heads of the Lutheran churches and other faiths, or the religious leaders in the US who helped squelch any deal to allow Jewish refugees to come to the US. The religious leaders failed in a way that those who acted did not, they truly realized they were supposed to love their brother as themselves and that even the lowest most hated person is loved by God, and that is what religion should be about. Thank you for this detailed post. I would like to see some people on this thread respond to it. Their silence speaks volumes about the effectiveness of your post.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625