Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

[quote]I know that it is a powerful and persuasive force capable of spreading globally and precluding critical thinking or sound judgment. I know there are other factors that can do the same, but I can't for the life of me think of one that's nearly as effective at it on such a massive scale.[/quote]

Nationalism is arguably far better at galvanizing people compared to religion. At least if modern history can demonstrate that.

Greed would be even better than religion.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740379' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.37']Self-identification does not equate fervency.[/quote]

True enough, but this is still a country where a large majority say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. I have no reason to believe that they are wrong. And yet all the changes that you mentioned happened, without the same sort of decline in religious devotion that took place in Europe. So it seems to me that you can't get a damned cause and effect out of that.

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740370' date='Mar 31 2009, 13.27']Bill Starbuck,

Obviously I disagree.[/quote]


Excellent. I wasn't sure you would. Could you elaborate a little please?


[quote]Further, I think there are, "More things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosphy." Because something doesn't lend itself to rational exploration does not mean it is not true.[/quote]


I never said the opposite.

But what you're advocating here appears to me an expansion for non-critical-thinking. I thought that your whole defense of religion was that it didn't preclude critical thinking? These two policies of yours while not exactly mutually exclusive do seem counter-intuitive to each other.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1740380' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.37']Nationalism is arguably far better at galvanizing people compared to religion. At least if modern history can demonstrate that.[/quote]

Nationalism is localized. Its not inherently internally divisive nor outwardly antagonistic. Nor does it inspire people to the point of suicide and murder for grievances occurring in a different country a thousand miles from their borders. Religion has a habit of doing that. Actions taken in pursuit of nationalism must also at some level be rationalized with real world justifications, predicated on real or perceived national interests, not the fickle whimsy of whatever God says. And since they're not acts of the divine, they are generally more open to disagreement or dispute than the inerrant, immutable word of god.

[quote]Greed would be even better than religion.[/quote]

And I'm sure physical sexual desire is the most prevalent cause of sex, but a more permissive and open culture is still gonna increase things above and beyond that natural base. Seriously, this is like saying blond hair is biggest cause of blond hair.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740392' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.49']Its not inherently internally divisive nor outwardly antagonistic.[/quote]

You could only say this in complete ignorance of the last two centuries of history. I suppose Japanese nationalism was not outwardly antagonistic? That Tamil nationalism is not internally divisive?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740383' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.40']True enough, but this is still a country where a large majority say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. I have no reason to believe that they are wrong. And yet all the changes that you mentioned happened, without the same sort of decline in religious devotion that took place in Europe. So it seems to me that you can't get a damned cause and effect out of that.[/quote]

The religious decline hasn't been as pronounced as in Europe, but its certainly declined since 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. We still have fervent religious nuts, but they're not the majority. They're pushing for 'just a theory' labels and at worst for equal time for creationism (still deplorable), not the complete removal of evolution in classrooms as was the standard less than a century ago. The religious revival of the 80's onward may have pushed things back a bit, but in historical terms, only a bit. America's progression has largely been one of increasing, not decreasing secularization.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740395' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.54']We still have fervent religious nuts, but they're not the majority.[/quote]

The large majority of America is still quite religious, though. You seem to be dancing around this conclusion, but it's true and easily verifiable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tony,

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1740386' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.43']Ser Scot,

Excellent. I wasn't sure you would. Could you elaborate a little please?[/quote]

I do think critically about my faith, hence my position in support of homosexual marriage. However, I also accept my faith is not something that is explorable for emperical results, therefore, "critically thinking" regarding the fundementals of my faith, the trinity, the duality/singularity of Christ's nature, the problem of pain, may not develope answers that fit into emperically testable packages. This doesn't mean I don't think about them and don't question it just means that if I don't find an answer I like it doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my faith.

[quote]I never said the opposite.

But what you're advocating here appears to me an expansion for non-critical-thinking. I thought that your whole defense of religion was that it didn't preclude critical thinking? These two policies of yours while not exactly mutually exclusive do seem counter-intuitive to each other.[/quote]

Please see above.

:)

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740393' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.51']You could only say this in complete ignorance of the last two centuries of history. I suppose Japanese nationalism was not outwardly antagonistic? That Tamil nationalism is not internally divisive?[/quote]

Notice the use of 'inherently'. There is nothing about nationalism that suggests it must divide along ethnic lines nor that it demands outward militarism. American nationalism has extended to include just about every race, ethnicity, color and creed. Just speak the language without an accent, adopt the dress and a bit of the culture and you're just as American as anyone else in most eyes. It is a unifying force that supersedes just about all other internal divisions. At its best it is a unifying force that contributes towards internal stability and well-being regardless of all other dividing factors. Many of your most unstable nations are those without a strong sense of national identity. Those where other divisions trump and lead to violence, instability, and strife.

And there are plenty of countries with strong national identities that are neither militaristic nor antagonistic.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740397' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.55']The large majority of America is still quite religious, though. You seem to be dancing around this conclusion, but it's true and easily verifiable.[/quote]

Define quite religious. I think its safe to say that there are less 'quite religious' people by any standard than there were 50 or 100 years ago.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740408' date='Mar 31 2009, 17.01']Define quite religious. I think its safe to say that there are less 'quite religious' people by any standard than there were 50 or 100 years ago.[/quote]

You saw my definition: people who say that religion is an important part of their lives. Such people make up the large majority of America. And yet we can still see tits on HBO. Will wonders never cease?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740411' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.03']You saw my definition: people who say that religion is an important part of their lives. Such people make up the large majority of America. And yet we can still see tits on HBO. Will wonders never cease?[/quote]

That's too generic to really be all that meaningful. Its a purely subjective measure that in no way works as an adequate measure of religious fervency over various periods.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740413' date='Mar 31 2009, 17.05']That's too generic to really be all that meaningful. Its a purely subjective measure that in no way works as an adequate measure of religious fervency over various periods.[/quote]

Then how would you define religious fervency?

[The Khaleesi]

JQA - what is your position about the place of religion in the world?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='The Khaleesi' post='1740415' date='Mar 31 2009, 17.07']JQA - what is your position about the place of religion in the world?[/quote]

I'm agnostic. (To be clear, agnostic about the place of religion in the world. Also, agnostic in the religious sense.)

[Lord Mord]

Ser Scot,

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1740398' date='Mar 31 2009, 13.56']I do think critically about my faith, hence my position in support of homosexual marriage. However, I also accept my faith is not something that is explorable for emperical results, therefore, "critically thinking" regarding the fundementals of my faith, the trinity, the duality/singularity of Christ's nature, the problem of pain, may not develope answers that fit into emperically testable packages. This doesn't mean I don't think about them and don't question it just means that if I don't find an answer I like it doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my faith.[/quote]


What is it that I said that contradicts your position?

[Guest Other-in-law]

I have to say, it's very strange to see Japanese suicide bombing and general warmongering being used as an example of [i]non[/i]-religious negative effects. Both Shintoism and Zen Buddhism gave ample ideological support to Japanese fanaticism. The Yasakuni shrine provides a rough analogy to the jihadist 77 virgins, Emperor worship surely intensified militaristic zeal, and traditional Buddhist notions of compassion were even used to justify the slaughter of those unfortunate enough to have been born to lesser races; speeding their deaths would bring the possibility of reincarnation in superior form that much sooner.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740414' date='Mar 31 2009, 16.05']Then how would you define religious fervency?[/quote]

Creationism only vs. 'just a theory' or 'creationism & evolution'. Homosexuality is a mental illness and crime that must be punished vs. gays shouldn't be able to marry. The increasing acceptance and open identification of atheism. Women MUST stay at home barefoot and pregnant, accept their husbands sexual advances even when unwanted, obedience and a blind eye towards spousal abuse vs. acceptance of the professional, capable working woman as an ideal, movement and some progress towards equal rights in the workplace, and a decreasing acceptance of the old order of female subservience. Mass censorship of books and films deemed immoral or subversive vs. tits on HBO. You know, actual tangible examples of changing cultural norms across the country when the previous ones were once strongly held by throughout society with fairly heavy religious influence.

We are secularizing and have been for a long time.

[The Khaleesi]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740417' date='Apr 1 2009, 10.07']I'm agnostic. (To be clear, agnostic about the place of religion in the world. Also, agnostic in the religious sense.)[/quote]

Thanks for that.

[kungtotte]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740357' date='Mar 31 2009, 22.16']There is no 9-11, thus no Afghanistan or Iraq, and thus no Gitmo WITHOUT RELIGION.[/quote]
[quote]Yes 9-11 happened because of religion. They believed they were at war with the US primarily due to religion.[/quote]
Why do you continue to believe that religion is the linchpin of terrorist acts like 9/11? You don't have to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_bombing"]look far[/url] to find example of suicidal terrorist attacks that aren't connected to religion, which disproves your theory that you need religion to motivate people to carry out attacks such as 9/11.

Furthermore, the antipathy between the US and the middle-east is fueled by the US actions in the region rather than the difference in religion between the US and Afghanistan. Religion here plays the role of an additional source of contention, and a cheap way of organizing things. Much like religion became a symbol in the struggle in Northern Ireland. It didn't start with catholics bombing protestants, it started when the brits occupied and oppressed the irish.

Remove religion from either situation and you will find that events would have transpired in much the same way, albeit perhaps with different actors and with a slightly different discourse.