Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1739865' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.45']Of course religion adds good. Religiously inspired donations, care for the weak, charitable work. Inspiration and (in past eras) funding for great works of art and architecture. A unifying force for a great many peoples. But it is easily outweighed by the negatives even more so now than in eras past. We know longer need religion to unite Chrystendom to a common purpose in the era of mass communications, established cultural identities and nationalism. There are less divisive things to unite people that are not subject to the fickle whimsy of whatever god says nor the fervent devotion that subverts good sense and reason. We no longer need it to answer the mysteries of the physical world, because we know that even if there isn't a scientific answer yet, that one is out there. Art and architecture no longer needs religious patrons, influence, or inspiration to be done and done well. It is not necessary for people to be charitable. And as religious folk in the US tend to identify politically with the party that abhors welfare and foreign aid, they may actually be an impediment to alot of the more sizable and effective charity.

Religion serves no purpose that cannot be fulfilled effectively via secular means.[/quote]

I get what you are saying. However, I disagree. Provided people are not pushing their faith upon others and therein lies the rub.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739871' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.50']EHK,

I get what you are saying. However, I disagree. [b]Provided people are not pushing their faith upon others and therein lies the rub.[/b][/quote]

But this is unavoidable. Religious people are going to be politically active and they will seek to establish their religious values into law. Many of those will be repressive and challenge the individual freedoms of others. Even where it doesn't touch law, it will greatly influence cultural standards and norms that can contribute to everything from the 2nd class status of women to the pariah status of gays. No matter which form it takes, they will almost always be voices of backwards regression and an impediment to human progress. Even if they completely mind their own business, your creationists (who acount around a third of the population) have preemptively disqualified their kids from serious study in many of the sciences. They in themselves represent a self-imposed brain drain upon society. One way or another, directly or indirectly, their faith will be 'pushed upon' others.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1739877' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.59']But this is unavoidable. Religious people are going to be politically active and they will seek to establish their religious values into law. Many of those will be repressive and challenge the individual freedoms of others. Even where it doesn't touch law, it will greatly influence cultural standards and norms that can contribute to everything from the 2nd class status of women to the pariah status of gays. No matter which form it takes, they will almost always be voices of backwards regression and an impediment to human progress. Even if they completely mind their own business, your creationists (who acount around a third of the population) have preemptively disqualified their kids from serious study in many of the sciences. They in themselves represent a self-imposed brain drain upon society. One way or another, directly or indirectly, their faith will be 'pushed upon' others.[/quote]

Respectfully, it's not unaviodable. My church opposes homosexual marriage, I and others in my parish support it. If I can seperate my faith from my politics I imagine others are capable of the same thing.

[Rockroi]

Sorry I am so late to the party.

[quote]Are you saying that if Religion is not present fewer "evil" things would happen to people?[/quote]

If he is not saying that, take heart, because I am.

[quote]But Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were unfriendly toward organized established faith and each managed to commit atrocities that were equal to or greater than attrocities commited by people of faith.[/quote]

This is wildly untrue.

Hitler was exceptionally close to the Catholic Church in Germany; his man inside the Vatican, the papal nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, (later Pope Pius XII) helped cement Hitler’s hold over the faithful in the Fatherland. Hitler was clear in assuring that the lines of communication between him and the Church were open and free. I am not saying that Hitler (a Catholic) appraised the Pope on his Final Solution; but the record has shown a large effort of cooperation between the Pope and the Fuehrer.

Stalin, meanwhile, greatly disrupted church activities, but he made sure he had the Eastern Orthodox Church in his back pocket when he came to power; ensuring that the people who he was murdering were pacified by the faith. I believe that Stalin said something to the effect that while he hated organized religion, he was no idiot and knew its uses.

I am not really familiar with Mao to any degree.

[quote]The common element in all attrocities is not theism or atheism, but that those commiting the attrocities are people.[/quote]

Can we all agree that this sentence is meaningless? That it says nothing? People commit atrocities, but it adds nothing to the conversation to point it out. Its like saying “The only constant thing in all successful rock bands is that they are made up of people.” There are many commonalities in atrocities, but power over a large following of people is a necessity, and no institution has ever been more capable of getting perfectly reasonable people to do horrifying things than organized religion.

[quote]Is it your position that Religion adds no good to the world or that the good it adds is outweighed by the bad it causes?[/quote]

I am saying that any good religion “adds” is actually not added by religion, but would almost assuredly be able to be “added” without the existence of religion. Charity existed without Catholicism; good deeds without Jews; kindles without Lutherans. Religion is not some magical fountain that just pours fourth goodness. To quote you- PEOPLE put forth goodness.

And I would add that religion adds far more harm in and of itself.

As an exercise, lets think of something great and wonderful that could not possibly have come into existence without religion. It’s a hard task. Are we to believe that the ONLY way we have charity and humanism today is through religion? Poppycock. As I have stated before, I think its very safe to say that the Jews in Palestine were not lying and stealing from each other before Moses came down from the mountain. Those laws came from PEOPLE not from religion.

BUT- can we think of a really awful thing that would not have occurred but for religion? A far easier task- the Inquisition, the Palestine question, 9/11, genital mutilation of infants, etc etc etc etc. This list is virtually endless (the Crusades, child rape among the Catholic clergy).

There is a great saying (I do not remember who said it), that goes something like this: religion cannot make a bad man do good deeds, just as it cannot keep a bad person from doing bad things. But only organized religion can make a good person do terrible things. And we need no more proof than something terrible such as Palestinian suicide bombings or use of the Bible to support slavery.

Obviously, religion is not the only means of inflicting untold misery on our fellow man; but lets not gloss over this; lets not pretend its simply in a long line of horribles. Lets call it what it is- that organized religion has been the center-piece of making people hate one another for generations; for millennia, and that millions upon millions upon millions have been killed or have died, suffered, been maimed, etc because of the power and influence religion has on people.

As Christopher Hitchens has stated: our frontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too large; we are afraid of the dark, afraid to die and give too much credence to hucksters who peddle holy books that are so stupid that even a child can see through them (as they often do).

And so, when this woman holds back food from her 16 month old child, why are we even REMOTELY SURPRISED that religion was at the heart of this problem? Why do we bat an eye-lash? Do we so much as shrug our shoulders to the horrifying mess of it all?

I mean, when was the last time you heard a story such as “Atheist scholar George Smith was arrested today for starving his 22 month old son for not knowing the names of the 8 planets.” I mean, it would be utter nonsense.

Therefore, the BEST we can do is state that this woman suffered from a mental illness. But to believe that is to confront the idea that organized religion PROMOTES a type of collective mental illness. Only organized religion would make us believe that lobbing off parts of a child’s penis is understandable or that flying jet liners into buildings is praise-worthy.

So, please, spare me the tails of how religion is just another bad thing. It’s, frankly, the worst of the worst and ONLY with religion is something like this possible or even plausible.

[Rockroi]

[quote]Respectfully, it's not unaviodable. My church opposes homosexual marriage, I and others in my parish support it. If I can seperate my faith from my politics I imagine others are capable of the same thing.[/quote]

And thus I must return alone to this issue: how can you support homosexuality AND still call yourself a Christian when the Bible- the center of any Western faith – states:

[quote]Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[/quote]
[quote]Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/quote]
[quote]Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."[/quote]

Oh, and before you think its “just the Old Testament” (ie- the parts most Christians just ignore):

[quote]Romans 1:26-32, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."[/quote]
[quote]1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."[/quote]
[quote]1 Timothy 1:9-10, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"[/quote]
[quote]2 Peter 2:6, "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"[/quote]
[quote]Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."[/quote]

Thus, what I am hearing, Scott, is that there are certain parts of the Bible you agree with (the happy parts) and you listen to those and base your faith on those. However, the parts of the Bible you DO NOT agree with, you simply … ignore., even though Christianity CERTAINLY DOES NOT! This would be akin to me stating that I am a believer in the US Constitution, but I ignore Articles 3-5, because I do not agree with those.

What I am saying is NOT that I agree with these sentiments (I do not), but that Christianity… seems to.

Therefore, when people start doing crazy things and we say, "Well those people are just crazy" are we not ignoring the fact that religion assists them in their craziness? That religion makes it okay for some fucking twit in South Caroloina to parade with signs that read "God Hates Fags" because, well, those books SEEM TO SAY THAT!

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1739867' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.46']Now, since we're standing on a slippery slope, why don't we tilt the plane the other way a little? Many parents have terrible habits and practices that endanger their kids, from poor eating habits to second-hand smoke. Where do [i]you[/i] draw the line in allowing state intervention on behalf of children's welfare? Should we not give children of parents who expose their kids to air-borne carcinogens to the state instead? Should we not jail parents who groom their kids for early on-set diabetes and a lifelong cardiac problem? Do these not fall under your definition of the physical well being of children?[/quote]

I don't know, TerraPrime...I think we can draw a legitimate distinction between a parent who smokes around a child and a parent who deliberately and consciously starves a child to death. I don't really see that said slope is all that slippery.

I must say, also, that your opinion in this matter surprises me, given your stance on Megan's Laws and the like. You support taking privacy-intrusive legal steps of dubious effectiveness to protect a child from harm that may never happen and yet you oppose taking reasonable measures to protect a child from harm we know is occurring. I don't get it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rockroi,

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1739924' date='Mar 31 2009, 11.43']And thus I must return alone to this issue: how can you support homosexuality AND still call yourself a Christian when the Bible- the center of any Western faith – states:

Thus, what I am hearing, Scott, is that there are certain parts of the Bible you agree with (the happy parts) and you listen to those and base your faith on those. However, the parts of the Bible you DO NOT agree with, you simply … ignore., even though Christianity CERTAINLY DOES NOT! This would be akin to me stating that I am a believer in the US Constitution, but I ignore Articles 3-5, because I do not agree with those.

What I am saying is NOT that I agree with these sentiments (I do not), but that Christianity… seems to.

Therefore, when people start doing crazy things and we say, "Well those people are just crazy" are we not ignoring the fact that religion assists them in their craziness? That religion makes it okay for some fucking twit in South Caroloina to parade with signs that read "God Hates Fags" because, well, those books SEEM TO SAY THAT![/quote]

I was unaware that Orthodox Christianity was a "Sola Scriptura" church. Further, Orthodoxy's position is not that being homosexual is sinful but that, as with the Roman Catholic Church, homosexual sex is sinful. Therefore it opposes homosexual marriage because it would condone what it sees as a sinful act. I say that's none of my church's business and as such, on a secular basis I say homosexuals are entitled to marriage because it's an equal protection issue.

If Stalin was such a wonderful supporter of the Orthodox Church why was he suppressing the church and killing Clergy before the start of the "Great Patriotic War?"

[kungtotte]

Rockroi, It's hard to take you seriously when you think the Inquisition, the Crusades and 9/11 would not have happened sans religion. I bet you think the conflict in Northern Ireland was caused by religion as well?

There's a big, big difference between evils that religion is responsible for (genital mutilation, Jehova's Witnesses withholding necessary medical care from their children) and things where religion was simply the handiest excuse (Crusades, Inquisition), and there's also a difference between the evils of religion and the evils of the church. Catholic priests didn't molest children because they were Catholic priests, and religion isn't responsible for the [i]church[/i] sweeping the incidents under the rug. Their awful actions were probably made easier by their positions as priests, but by that logic we should also remove schools because of all the teacher-student affairs that keep popping up.

I'm no religious apologist by far, but non-factual arguments are quite counter-productive.

[b]ETA[/b], using Stalin in any kind of argument (for both sides) is also counter-productive, because he was a moustache-twirling mad-as-a-hatter paranoid-delusional [i]fuckhead[/i]. It would be like judging hippies based on Charles Manson.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

kungtotte,

[quote name='kungtotte' post='1739936' date='Mar 31 2009, 11.54'][b]ETA[/b], using Stalin in any kind of argument (for both sides) is also counter-productive, because he was a moustache-twirling mad-as-a-hatter paranoid-delusional [i]fuckhead[/i]. It would be like judging hippies based on Charles Manson.[/quote]

Okay, how about Mao and Pol Pot, the leaders of the Rwandan Genocide, Robert Mugabe, the U.S. regarding Native Americans, all motivated by Religion? To be clear I'm not saying they were doing anything to promote atheism. I'm saying religion wasn't a motivation in their horrible actions.

Rockroi, (& kungtotte),

[quote]Stalin, meanwhile, greatly disrupted church activities, but he made sure he had the Eastern Orthodox Church in his back pocket when he came to power; ensuring that the people who he was murdering were pacified by the faith. I believe that Stalin said something to the effect that while he hated organized religion, he was no idiot and knew its uses.[/quote]

Here's a wiki execerpt regarding Stalin's loving relationship with the Orthodox Church in Russia pre-Great Patriotic War:

[quote]Religion
Main article: Religion in the Soviet Union

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. [b]Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[69][/b] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed. [emaphsis added][/quote]

[TerraPrime]

Re: TN

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1739925' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.43']I must say, also, that your opinion in this matter surprises me, given your stance on Megan's Laws and the like. You support taking privacy-intrusive legal steps of dubious effectiveness to protect a child from harm that may never happen and yet you oppose taking reasonable measures to protect a child from harm we know is occurring. I don't get it.[/quote]

Religion. Pedophilia is not a religion. Refusing blood transfusion is.



Re: kungtotte

[quote]There's a big, big difference between evils that religion is responsible for (genital mutilation, Jehova's Witnesses withholding necessary medical care from their children) and things where religion was simply the handiest excuse (Crusades, Inquisition), and there's also a difference between the evils of religion and the evils of the church. Catholic priests didn't molest children because they were Catholic priests, and religion isn't responsible for the church sweeping the incidents under the rug. Their awful actions were probably made easier by their positions as priests, but by that logic we should also remove schools because of all the teacher-student affairs that keep popping up.[/quote]

Quite.

However, one cannot then turn around and claim the goods done in the name of religion as a positive contribution from religion. If we assert that people will do evil by nature, and merely dress up their evil acts with the robes of a religion, then we should extend that view to good deeds, and recognize that people will do good by nature, and merely dress up their good deeds with the robes of a religion. Is that not so?

[kungtotte]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739951' date='Mar 31 2009, 18.06']Okay, how about Mao and Pol Pot, the leaders of the Rwandan Genocide, Robert Mugabe, the U.S. regarding Native Americans, all motivated by Religion? To be clear I'm not saying they were doing anything to promote atheism. I'm saying religion wasn't a motivation in their horrible actions.

BTW here's a wiki execerpt regarding Stalin's loving relationship with the Orthodox Church in Russia pre-Great Patriotic War:[/quote]
I don't know enough about Africa to give you an honest answer on those, but for the rest I'd say no, not motivated by religion.

The thing about Stalin is that he was so paranoid-delusional that any religious beliefs he could potentially have held wouldn't have mattered. He didn't condemn all those people to death because he was an atheist or because they were religious, he did it because he was totally off his rocker and completely paranoid. Hell, he'd give one of friends a big promotion one week and the next week said friend would be in Gulag.

That's not saying that Pol Pot was a shining beacon of mental health, but there was more method to his madness and if you want an example of atheist-leader-gone-wrong he's the one you want to go with. When he forbade the practice of religion he did it because he had a Plan, and religion interfered with it.

[b]ETA[/b]
[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1739971' date='Mar 31 2009, 18.20']Quite.

However, one cannot then turn around and claim the goods done in the name of religion as a positive contribution from religion. If we assert that people will do evil by nature, and merely dress up their evil acts with the robes of a religion, then we should extend that view to good deeds, and recognize that people will do good by nature, and merely dress up their good deeds with the robes of a religion. Is that not so?[/quote]
I would agree with you, but then I wasn't saying that religion has no flaws. I was just pointing out that there are evils caused by religion (those evils wouldn't have occurred if there were no religion) and evils correlated with religion (the evils would still happen if religion was removed).

However, I'd say that all good things done in the name of religion are quite possible without religion too, it's just that religion provides a handy way of organizing and promoting said good things. That is to say, the good things aren't caused by religion, they are just correlated with religion.

[Lord Mord]

Rockroi,

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1739924' date='Mar 31 2009, 08.43']Thus, what I am hearing, Scott, is that there are certain parts of the Bible you agree with (the happy parts) and you listen to those and base your faith on those. However, the parts of the Bible you DO NOT agree with, you simply … ignore., even though Christianity CERTAINLY DOES NOT! This would be akin to me stating that I am a believer in the US Constitution, but I ignore Articles 3-5, because I do not agree with those.[/quote]


And this is good news! A Christian who, like all Christians, picks and chooses, and who, unlike most Christians, [i]admits[/i] he picks and chooses! And guess what? He [i]chooses the right bits![/i] Isn't that wonderful?


And, actually, your Constitutional comparison is just fine: plenty of people think that some of the Articles and some of the Amendments are total crap. Why shouldn't they? Do I have to believe in the right to own a rifle in order to believe I've the right to worship or not worship as I choose?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='kungtotte' post='1739936' date='Mar 31 2009, 10.54']Rockroi, It's hard to take you seriously when you think the Inquisition, the Crusades and 9/11 would not have happened sans religion. I bet you think the conflict in Northern Ireland was caused by religion as well?[/quote]

What possible force is gonna motivate an entire continent to abandon their lands, assets, and families to travel halfway across the world in a journey riddled with constant hardships and dangers but religion? What exactly is there to purge via torture and interrogation without religion? And who in their right mind thinks its a good idea to commit suicide while taking as many civilians with you as possible against a country you're not at war with without religion? No, these things would not have happened without religion. The Pope isn't going to make an appeal on behalf of some distant Greek empire nor are tens of thousands going to answer it without the specter of evil infidels taking over the holiest of holies and Papal remission of all sins for doing so. Millions of peoples throughout half the world aren't going to be outraged, with some to the point of violence or suicide, because of some localized ethnic conflict in the Levant and white soldiers in the desert. And you're not gonna see such organized and extensive persecution when you really don't have much to persecute that the whole population can rally around.

None of these things happen without religion.

[quote]There's a big, big difference between evils that religion is responsible for (genital mutilation, Jehova's Witnesses withholding necessary medical care from their children) and things where religion was simply the handiest excuse (Crusades, Inquisition), and there's also a difference between the evils of religion and the evils of the church. Catholic priests didn't molest children because they were Catholic priests, and religion isn't responsible for the [i]church[/i] sweeping the incidents under the rug. Their awful actions were probably made easier by their positions as priests, but by that logic we should also remove schools because of all the teacher-student affairs that keep popping up.[/quote]

Even if religion is merely a convenient excuse (which I don't accept for the examples you raised) or tool, part of the problem is that its a damned effective tool. Religion, more than culture, nationalism, ideology or any other ism you can think of, is capable of motivating great swaths of people to do or accept terrible things. Its existence either encourages these terrible things to occur or exacerbates them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

kungtotte,

[quote name='kungtotte' post='1739975' date='Mar 31 2009, 12.23']I don't know enough about Africa to give you an honest answer on those, but for the rest I'd say no, not motivated by religion.

The thing about Stalin is that he was so paranoid-delusional that any religious beliefs he could potentially have held wouldn't have mattered. He didn't condemn all those people to death because he was an atheist or because they were religious, he did it because he was totally off his rocker and completely paranoid. Hell, he'd give one of friends a big promotion one week and the next week said friend would be in Gulag.

That's not saying that Pol Pot was a shining beacon of mental health, but there was more method to his madness and if you want an example of atheist-leader-gone-wrong he's the one you want to go with. When he forbade the practice of religion he did it because he had a Plan, and religion interfered with it.[/quote]

As I said my contention is not that people promote athiesm with violence. My contention is that if you remove religion from the equation people [i]still[/i] do very bad things. Therefore, in my opinion, dispite Rockroi's mockery, I believe the common element in very bad acts is that they are commited by people, regardless of their rational for commiting the attrocities.

[quote][b]ETA[/b]

I would agree with you, but then I wasn't saying that religion has no flaws. I was just pointing out that there are evils caused by religion (those evils wouldn't have occurred if there were no religion) and evils correlated with religion (the evils would still happen if religion was removed).

However, I'd say that all good things done in the name of religion are quite possible without religion too, it's just that religion provides a handy way of organizing and promoting said good things. That is to say, the good things aren't caused by religion, they are just correlated with religion.[/quote]

Who's saying religion is without flaws?

[Kalbear]

[quote]What possible force is gonna motivate an entire continent to abandon their lands, assets, and families to travel halfway across the world in a journey riddled with constant hardships and dangers but religion?[/quote]Ask the Germans when they went to Stalingrad. Ask the Mongolians when they invaded Europe.

Rock, you asked what things were done with religion that were good that couldn't have been accomplished elsewise. I ask the corrolary - take anything you choose (technology, political views, government, ethnicity, whatever you like) - what have they provided that couldn't have been provided some other way?

[Lord Mord]

TP,

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1739971' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.20']Religion. Pedophilia is not a religion. Refusing blood transfusion is.[/quote]

In this context, you've omitted the obvious next question: suppose the pedophilia were propped up by religion. Which takes precedence? If it is the pedophilia, and reports must continue to the detriment of their religious practice, when, as TN says such reports are of at best dubious protection, then why not step in against starvation, too, where sustenance can only be to the good? Is pedophilia a crime, but gross mistreatment of one's ward is not?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1739867' date='Mar 31 2009, 09.46']Re: EHK
In a general sense, I think government should respect people's religious convictions, even if that sometimes leads to unfortunate deaths. I accept this sad truth just as I accept that thousands of people will die each year from motor vehicle accidents, and several dozens of people will die from firearm accidents. If we want cars and the right to own guns, we will pay a price. If we want religion freedom, this is the price we will pay.[/quote]

No it isn't a price we need to pay nor is it one we usually do pay . We manage to have extensive and substantive religious freedom in this country while still protecting the well-being of children from harm. The judicial intervention in just about every Jehova's Witness child blood transfusion case is a prime example. Religion is not and should not be a license for severe child neglect or abuse. We do grant parents wide discretion as to how they choose to raise their kids, but we have limits in the form of child abuse and neglect laws and standards. It seems absurd to me to grant some parents special exemptions from the law just because their religion says so.

[quote]When someone is of age, and if they refuse to participate in the religion, then they should not be forced to. If someone willingly follow a religion that demands honor killing, then I have no problem with them getting killed. I will condemn the religion for being barbaric, and work to counteract their effort to gain new members, but it will be that person's freedom to participate in a religion like that.[/quote]

The problem here is that some of these kids will never come of age because of the 'participation' in religion that their parents have forced upon them. And toleration of honor killings is simply grotesque and unjustifiable. That's essentially giving license for every Muslim (together with any other religion that adheres to such practices) to hunt down and murder any adulteress or otherwise immoral and death worthy muslim woman at their discretion. You are saying vigilante murder is ok even though no actual law has been broken by the victims. Sorry, but religious freedom has its limits and I still find it unfathomable and ridiculous that you don't seem to think it does.

[quote]Also, forced genital mutilation happens every day in the U.S. We even send gifts and throw parties for them.[/quote]

It also causes no real harm to the individual and not doing so may lead to hygiene problems, social anxiety and/or ostracization. Like it or not, getting clipped is a cultural norm, has some benefits, and no real drawbacks. Female castration is another matter entirely.

[quote]Now, since we're standing on a slippery slope, why don't we tilt the plane the other way a little? Many parents have terrible habits and practices that endanger their kids, from poor eating habits to second-hand smoke. Where do [i]you[/i] draw the line in allowing state intervention on behalf of children's welfare? Should we not give children of parents who expose their kids to air-borne carcinogens to the state instead? Should we not jail parents who groom their kids for early on-set diabetes and a lifelong cardiac problem? Do these not fall under your definition of the physical well being of children?[/quote]

What slippery slope? You've essentially advocated an unlimited freedom of religion even to the point of murder. You've glanced at the slope, peaked down, than took a running leap off the edge of the cliff. Obviously there's some gray area under the duties of parents and what qualifies as child abuse according to the state. But starving your kid is pretty damned black and white. Refusing them necessary life-saving treatment, yep. And murdering other people for not following certain religious tenets, absolutely. As for the gray stuff you mention...I'm all for declaring that child abuse about the time teaching kids creationism and other anti-science, anti-reality nonsense falls into the same category.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1739991' date='Mar 31 2009, 11.34']Ask the Germans when they went to Stalingrad. Ask the Mongolians when they invaded Europe.

Rock, you asked what things were done with religion that were good that couldn't have been accomplished elsewise. I ask the corrolary - take anything you choose (technology, political views, government, ethnicity, whatever you like) - what have they provided that couldn't have been provided some other way?[/quote]

The Germans had cars and railroads and the mongols were leaving behind barren wastelands filled with sheep. Anyplace they conquered was an improvement.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1739971' date='Mar 31 2009, 11.20']Religion. Pedophilia is not a religion. Refusing blood transfusion is.[/quote]

To back up Tony (I think that's starbuck?), pedophilia is a pretty common feature in various mormon sects, something many seem to genuinely believe is an essential aspect of their mini-cult. Does your respect for free religion condone forced marriages of 50 year olds to 12 year olds and all the rape that goes along with it?

[Eponine]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1739931' date='Mar 31 2009, 11.51']I was unaware that Orthodox Christianity was a "Sola Scriptura" church. Further, Orthodoxy's position is not that being homosexual is sinful but that, as with the Roman Catholic Church, homosexual sex is sinful. Therefore it opposes homosexual marriage because it would condone what it sees as a sinful act. I say that's none of my church's business and as such, on a secular basis I say homosexuals are entitled to marriage because it's an equal protection issue.[/quote]

Do you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired? And do you believe that there has been some kind of special revelation since the Bible was written where god has told the church which historical beliefs are still true and which are outdated? How, beyond your own common sense (and maybe you consider that god-given, but other people with common sense come to different conclusions about what god wants), can you know "what god wants"?

***
Rockroi, if I were a believer in religion, this is the answer that I'd give regarding your statements on understanding the Bible and homosexuality (from doxa.ws). Obviously, I don't believe it myself, but am interested in how someone else would counter. (Although I generally agree with you on picking and choosing parts of the Bible that you like, I certainly don't agree that almost all really awful human doings have been a direct result of religion).

[i]I think the problem is that there is a fundamentalist way of reading the Bible, that starts from certain presuppositions. Starting from those presuppositions, you get a certain way of reading ALL of the Bible. But there are other ways of understanding the Bible that change the whole way it is read.

Fundamentalists (and atheists, too) usually read the Bible like a "memo from the Boss" which is supposed to read the same way to us ("plain-sense") as it did to the original audience. Read this way, it is not just the truths of the Bible, but the whole cultural context in which the Bible was transmitted, that are supposed to be preserved. If we take our own understandings of what a text means, and without reference to what it meant to the original audience (such as whether it was challenging them to slowly but surely move away from the strict patriarchy or bloody tribalism they had always known), we will, beyond doubt, find the Bible primitive, tribal, patriarchal and bloody.

But the Bible is not a "memo from the Boss," and the cultures in which the Bible was written are not being given divine sanction. We are not supposed to perpetuate the cultures in which the Bible was received, as if they were part of the truths conveyed by the Bible!

With this understanding, research is necessary to ascertain how the Bible would have been understood in the original cultures. God's gradual, redemptive work in each culture thus becomes apparent. God is working in and through human culture, not giving it some sort of blanket approval just because He spoke to people within the assumptions they were making at the time. Understand the assumptions, and you understand where God was trying to lead the people. And it was always, slowly but surely, AWAY from patriarchy and prejudice, and TOWARDS equality, freedom, and compassion.
[/i]