Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[GSP]

Dude, it was an honest question, and not stupid at all beings it was based upon something you stated explicitly and would correspond to most of what I've heard in this thread. It really got me wondering. Sorry if I had you mischaracterized. Thing is, I have run into people of your belief system who genuinely do believe just that. Sorry, but holy shit simmer down. Or need we meet with pistols at dawn because I've offended your character? I'm game.

Well, as you've determined our conversation is at an end, and I'm tired of hearing your bigoted rantings, I'll leave it to you to resume your sermon pastor.

[Bellis]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1742420' date='Apr 2 2009, 12.04']I know it is not expressly on topic, but it is very closely related. Did anyone see [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512087,00.html"]this?[/url] Animal Sacrifice? Here in the U.S.??? :stunned: :eek:[/quote]

I really don't see why this is a problem, as long as safety and hygiene considerations are taken. It's not like hunting or raising livestock for slaughter isn't acceptable, and this is materially no different. I also don't see why this is weird or even illegal, but then I had a friend who had to kill a chicken to be ordained into the Yoruba religion.

[EHK for Darwin]

Against my better judgment, it was a decent post and merits a response.

[quote name='GSP' post='1742332' date='Apr 2 2009, 12.10']I think it's pretty clear you are pretty damn sure atheism (that's an 'ism' right) is the only point of view that makes sense and that members of all faiths lack critical insight and have their actions influenced by a cancer that but for democratic principles, you'd love to stamp into the ground. You're an anti deist missionary, why don't you just make your peace with it?[/quote]

If you're talking atheist as in the absolute refusal to even consider the tiny possibility of god, that is not my position nor would I consider it a sensible one. Anything's possible, no matter how ridiculously improbable. But I treat the possible existence of god like I would the existence of 500 foot tall invisible leprechauns, shape-shifting alien lizards impersonating our world leaders, or the possibility that reality is a dream and we're all really stuck in the Matrix. Something with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it that's so massively improbable that its not worth taking seriously. So no, I'm not 100% sure that atheism is right, but 99.999999999% is good enough for my purposes. People who believe in god despite the lack of any evidence are effectively suspending critical thinking and in fact the whole notion of faith pretty much requires it. I find that to be a perfect example of irrationality in action.

[quote]You do know that not every deist is a right wing crazy right? Because I get the impression from your posts that every time you mention religious people, you are thinking of a particular right winged political animal (for example, the many religious people who vote for fiscally conservative principles.). The pro Bush Christians are but one stripe in a highly politically divergent religion. Are you as upset by some inner city street active Church that runs a shelter and a soup kitchen and whose members would as soon vote for Satan as the Bush administration?[/quote]

A politically highly divergent religion where probably 90% (or more) of the denominations still officially oppose equal rights for homosexuals. Most of the churches who do support it typically reside in extremely secularized countries where the dominant church has become little more than a cultural relic. Also, you still have your damaging fanatics in Canada even if they're not relevant politically. You have Jehovah's Witnesses, your courts must waste time and taxpayer dollars to make sure they don't kill their kids every time they have a transfusion. And I'm sure some kids still die in the care of parents who skip the hospitals due to those fears. You've got Canadian citizens (pretty sure he's a citizen) in Gitmo due to a father's desire to include the rest of the family in his Holy War. Even if they can't vote their beliefs into law, I guarantee you have other pockets of fanaticism or religious extremism in Canada whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise. How many women get repressed, beaten or raped by husbands or relatives because they live in an insulated religious enclave that permits it? Maybe the occasional honor killing? Easily some kids still being taught creationism over reality. Your problems may not be as severe, but whereever religion exists, there will be problems from it.

But as you say, the overall religious problem in Canada is not that severe. Ever wonder why that is? I suspect that its for much the same reasons as in Europe; the secularization of most of society, the declining prominence and importance of religion in most peoples daily lives, in a phrase, the decline of religion. Good for you guys. That's what I'm looking for. Both here and everywhere else in the world. If religion everywhere reached the level of importance it has in say Sweden, I might be able to tolerate it. A benign tumor rather than a body destroying cancerous mass. But until that happens, its still too dangerous and destructive in far too many places.

[quote]For the record, back when I was a person of faith, I would have found your Obama quote about the relationship between religious doctrine and legislation as a given. Many, many other people of faith would as well. You are railing against those who would impose theocracy upon us all. That is not even close to being a universally held sentiment amongst those of religious conviction.[/quote]

But its not a given. Certainly not here. A third (give or take) of the population here would desperately love to codify their theological beliefs into law with no justification whatsoever beyond the church. A huge percentage of religious people globally would be all in favor of varying degrees of theocracy and some of them have it. The sentiment doesn't have to be universal for the idea itself to reasonably be considered damaging and dangerous. Once you reach a certain percentage of followers, leaders, denominations, or individual churches that favor or promote such nonsense, its time to consider that there are some fundamental problems with religion itself.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1742419' date='Apr 2 2009, 13.04']If you don't like some of the products of religion, I'll join you in shouting them down, and I think you'll find religious folks joining us. Different ones perhaps for different issues, but many devout don't want to suffer the abuse attendant on holding onto second-century attitdues, and good on 'em!


Why not cheer the successes, too, as well as jeer the offenders?[/quote]

Because the problem is more widespread than a few offenders. Its systematic and pervasive. Imagine if a 3rd of GM's cars broke down after 10,000 miles, a third of that third endangered every passenger in even minor wrecks, and an even tinier percentage simply blew up after a few hundred miles. Imagine if the same thing (different percentages) happens with Ford's, Chevy's, Toyota's, Volvo's, Honda's, etc. If cars weren't so essential, you'd start to think all cars were dangerous menaces. Or at least enough of them that its worth condemning the whole concept and avoiding them entirely. Except in this case, the cars aren't necessary. We've found a new, more effective means of transportation and there is no service a car provides that can't be done and done well by other means. Wouldn't you want to see them all tossed into the junkyard of history? Are you really going to be mollified by the fact that not all the cars breakdown or kill people? Or even that most of them don't? Is the statement that 'Well, Saturns have a good track record' really gonna change your mind on cars generally?

Wow...didn't really mean to have a 10 page car analogy, but there it is.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1741625' date='Apr 1 2009, 20.51']Religion is uniquely suited to the spread of a wide variety of and unquestioning obedience to fucked up ideas. Yes stupid or mentally ill people will still do stupid things. But religion is like putting those ill or stupid people on crack and speed, bad very quickly turns to worse.[/quote]

I agree with EHK's sentiments, even if not his words. While I don't think religion is inherently evil, I think it is a ready vehicle for evil. Any system that discourages independent judgment (which I find most religions do) and spawns self-righteous, absolute moral certitude is to be feared, in my view. Now before anyone starts...

1) No, I do not think religions should be outlawed or its followers persecuted, marked, killed, etc.

2) Yes, I realize that religion is not the only organization that can serve as a handy way to do harm. Certainly the US government can be and has been put to that very purpose. However, I think the rules under which our government works are much less friendly to widespread and heinous evil than the rules under which so many religious function.

[GSP]

I won't abuse your better judgement EHK and really don't want to end up in personal attacks back and forth. It was never my intention, and quite ironic considering my personal theological views are very close to yours (I left my family's faith behind because it demands too much sacrifice without any proof. My lifestyle would never be approved of by any Church. I'm well aware of all the issues surrounding the interpretations and origins of religious texts. I'm a doubting Thomas, and until I personally see a manifestation of the spiritual or truly miraculous, I'll remain skeptical of all religious claims).

The difference between us is that I can acknowledge many positive's that have come from the religious/spiritual arena and do not judge those who hold to beliefs that I don't to be morally and/or intellectually suspect or an inherent impediment to any rational progress. I mean, I used to be religious, I wasn't bat shit crazy or stupid then. Many people will change their religious or non religious convictions many times over the course of the decades depending on where they are personally in their life. Their intellect and rationality remain consistent throughout. Religions have a leap of faith built in that many are willing to take at times in their life where they have some kind of spiritual need. Just because I aint feeling it doesn't mean I'm gonna jump up and down screaming 'wrong'. Different strokes for different folks. Some people honestly enjoy reality TV too, good for them. I can turn the channel.

And yes, the separation of Church and State is a great thing, for both the Church and the State. Roman Catholicism is far more true to itself since it lost its armies and other temporal power. Power corrupts, and religions in power tend to be surprise, surprise, corrupt. Your fanatics down south still have some power so it is warping your sense of all religion IMHO. Where you see abortion clinic bombings and bigotry, I see Ned Flanders at a pancake luncheon.

Me, I'm usually shaking off a pot induced stupor on Sunday mornings. If others feel like dragging their ass out of bed to go hear a fancy 'do unto others' message, so be it. I don't see the harm. Fanaticism should be stomped down. Joe average's piety is no concern of mine and you know what, I've a strong suspicion it'll never go all the way away.

Besides, aren't you for a little diversity? How boring would this board be if everyone was aboard with your way of thinking. Me, I appreciate the many faiths of the world as part of a complex social tapestry. Do away with it all, and you loose a lot of character and colour in this world.

I couldn't open the link to the animal sacrifice thing. If the animals are treated no less humanely than at a regulatory compliant slaughter house and the animal is consumed, I don't really care if a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo accompanied the slaughter.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1741625' date='Apr 1 2009, 17.51']Religion is uniquely suited to the spread of a wide variety of and unquestioning obedience to fucked up ideas. Yes stupid or mentally ill people will still do stupid things. But religion is like putting those ill or stupid people on crack and speed, bad very quickly turns to worse.[/quote]
The same argument could be made for just about any one of the world's various major political parties (I almost said the DNC, but I've shown my nut-job stripes enough lately).

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1742564' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.48']The same argument could be made for just about any one of the world's various major political parties (I almost said the DNC, but I've shown my nut-job stripes enough lately).[/quote]

No, I don't think so. The political parties fight, yes, and they can certainly be pernicious, but they don't claim to speak on behalf of ultimate reality, nor do they claim to be the only path to salvation (whatever that means to you). And unless I am mistaken, they don't encourage their followers to kill others or themselves in the name of morality/God/whatever. So I think you're off-base here.

[Kalbear]

[quote]No, I don't think so. The political parties fight, yes, and they can certainly be pernicious, but they don't claim to speak on behalf of ultimate reality, nor do they claim to be the only path to salvation (whatever that means to you). And unless I am mistaken, they don't encourage their followers to kill others or themselves in the name of morality/God/whatever. So I think you're off-base here.[/quote]Kinda depends on what political party you're talking about. The Taliban fits that to a T, as did Maoist China or the Sandinistas.

Basically I should sum up my opinion in the simplest way possible. KILL ALL THE EXTREMISTS.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1742580' date='Apr 2 2009, 12.58']No, I don't think so. The political parties fight, yes, and they can certainly be pernicious, but they don't claim to speak on behalf of ultimate reality, nor do they claim to be the only path to salvation (whatever that means to you). And unless I am mistaken,[b] they don't encourage their followers to kill others [/b]or themselves in the name of morality/God/whatever. So I think you're off-base here.[/quote]
Senator McCarthy might have said otherwise. I, myself, most certainly beg to differ.
Political parties speak as though they are "in the know" on how things should run.
They claim that their way is the only way to safety, prosperity, civilization, etc.
They drive deep divides in the people. They keep it a matter of "[i]Us Vs. Them[/i]". Liberals vs. Conservatives. Left-Wing Pinko Commies vs. Right-Wing Redneck Nut-jobs. Etc., Etc., Etc.
And yes, sometimes Wars are fought to keep particular political beliefs and systems (other parties) from spreading and gaining power.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1742580' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.58']No, I don't think so. The political parties fight, yes, and they can certainly be pernicious, but they don't claim to speak on behalf of ultimate reality, nor do they claim to be the only path to salvation (whatever that means to you). [b]And unless I am mistaken, they don't encourage their followers to kill others or themselves in the name of morality/God/whatever. So I think you're off-base here.[/b][/quote]Considering that only a very small minority within major religions encourage this (and generally only during times of political unrest), then this claim against religion seems rather suspect. Nations throughout history have encouraged their inhabitants to kill their followers or to kill others or themselves in the name of country, lifestyle, and "common morality" too.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='GSP' post='1742562' date='Apr 2 2009, 14.47']I won't abuse your better judgement EHK and really don't want to end up in personal attacks back and forth. It was never my intention, and quite ironic considering my personal theological views are very close to yours (I left my family's faith behind because it demands too much sacrifice without any proof. My lifestyle would never be approved of by any Church. I'm well aware of all the issues surrounding the interpretations and origins of religious texts. I'm a doubting Thomas, and until I personally see a manifestation of the spiritual or truly miraculous, I'll remain skeptical of all religious claims).[/quote]

I'm in favor of skipping personal attacks as well. I apologize for implying you were an idiot.

[quote]Some people honestly enjoy reality TV too, good for them. I can turn the channel.
...
Where you see abortion clinic bombings and bigotry, I see Ned Flanders at a pancake luncheon.
...
Besides, aren't you for a little diversity? How boring would this board be if everyone was aboard with your way of thinking.[/quote]

What happens when they force through a law that mandates all TV shows be reality ones? And even if they don't, it still takes up timeslots and resources that otherwise would have gone to (potentially quality) scripted TV shows. Enough Ned Flander's on the macro scale and you've religiously motivated censorship, discrimination, legislative restrictions on individual freedom, higher STD/teen pregnancy rates, and a fair chunk of the next generation preemptively disqualified from any study of biology. Also, your more violent extremists don't just pop out of thin air. They need a more fervent base from which to grow and radicalize. And there's more than enough diversity from differing genders, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, upbringing, and ideology to ensure an unending array of diverse opinions without religion ever needing to get into the mix.

[quote]I couldn't open the link to the animal sacrifice thing. If the animals are treated no less humanely than at a regulatory compliant slaughter house and the animal is consumed, I don't really care if a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo accompanied the slaughter.[/quote]

I likewise could care less about animal sacrifice. Whether it gets slaughtered and sent to my dinner table or slaughtered to appease a blood-thirsty deity, why should I care?

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1742564' date='Apr 2 2009, 14.48']The same argument could be made for just about any one of the world's various major political parties (I almost said the DNC, but I've shown my nut-job stripes enough lately).[/quote]

Political parties tend to justify their positions through the question "what is in the best interests of the country"? (Or sometimes 'What's in the best interests of the party with the implied assumption that the good of the party eventually leads to the good of the nation) That doesn't prevent outright batshit conclusions, but it usually makes them less likely. They are also, as Obama said, more subject to argument and amenable to reason. Not to mention real world evidence. (none of the previous applies to Libertarian fiscal policy) 'God says' is infinitely less challengible, generally not based on real world concerns, evidence, or reason, and can really amount to and justify anything.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Late to the thread, gah.

Personally, I think part of the problem with the assessment of religion as a whole by atheists is, quite frankly, that we as humans tend to be fascinated by all the bad things in the world. Why else would we rubberneck on the highway whenever there is a crash, if not for a morbid curiosity in the misfortunes of others? I mean, it's easy to point out all the [i]bad[/i] things religion is tied to, because it's reported in the news then spread by those who would jump on their soapbox to preach against the evils of religion. (Hey, that level of arrogance exists with Christians too - that's just human nature, plain and simple. IMO though, no one has the right to force their [i]opinion[/i] onto others.)

But how often is the good that religion does reported, if at all? The people who turn to religion to help them recover from an addiction, or those who might have committed suicide if not for a pastor or other religious person being there to listen when they needed it? Those who were gang members and others who were imprisoned for their crimes, reformed due to religion?

It seems to me that, when all that's reported is the bad, it's so very easy to overlook the good, which can lead to a very skewed view of things.

Also, I'd like to remind people that the general population as a whole is rather stupid, selfish, arrogant, and rude to begin with. While I will give EHK that [i]some[/i] people can indeed be charitable, kind, and otherwise good people without any sort of religious background (regardless of their current beliefs), I remain highly skeptical that most people would.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1742589' date='Apr 2 2009, 16.06']Senator McCarthy might have said otherwise. I, myself, most certainly beg to differ.
Political parties speak as though they are "in the know" on how things should run.
They claim that their way is the only way to safety, prosperity, civilization, etc.
They drive deep divides in the people. They keep it a matter of "[i]Us Vs. Them[/i]". Liberals vs. Conservatives. Left-Wing Pinko Commies vs. Right-Wing Redneck Nut-jobs. Etc., Etc., Etc.
And yes, sometimes Wars are fought to keep particular political beliefs and systems (other parties) from spreading and gaining power.[/quote]

Unless the Democrats or Republicans are claiming to speak for God, I don't find this argument persuasive. Of course, Republicans often [i]do [/i]claim to speak for that deity, so perhaps I'm wrong after all...

[GSP]

EHK, I don't think anyone who has piped up in this thread wouldn't oppose theocracy. CiaranAnnrach is on to what I've been busting your balls about. Most of any positive benefit from religion rarely, if ever, make news. If I were to judge religion by American news headlines ALONE, I'd be right in your corner against this pervasive cancer. The problem is that silently, billions of devout people go about their lives without trying to politically enforce their beliefs or raise a finger against anybody. Judging all religion by the most horrible excesses of sub sects within a few isn't particularly accurate IMHO. It is what I and others find troubling about 'religions is a wretched cancer we'd all be better off without' blanket statements.

"And there's more than enough diversity from differing genders, ethnicities, [b]cultural backgrounds, upbringing, and ideology[/b] to ensure an unending array of diverse opinions without religion ever needing to get into the mix."

I can think of many examples where the bolded factors are tied to religious history/belief systems to suggest in many cases the two are inseparable.

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1742634' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.45']Unless the Democrats or Republicans are claiming to speak for God, I don't find this argument persuasive. Of course, Republicans often [i]do [/i]claim to speak for that deity, so perhaps I'm wrong after all...[/quote]

Wait, which deity? The Republican symbol [b]is[/b] an elephant, maybe they are all secretly speaking for Lord Ganesha!

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='CiaranAnnrach' post='1742625' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.37']It seems to me that, when all that's reported is the bad, it's so very easy to overlook the good, which can lead to a very skewed view of things.[/quote]

Welcome to the thread and better late than never. I don't think the good is overlooked, but as I've stated many times, the bad largely outweighs the good and even if it didn't, religion isn't necessary for most of the good it provides. It regularly is done and done well via secular means.

[quote]Also, I'd like to remind people that the general population as a whole is rather stupid, selfish, arrogant, and rude to begin with. While I will give EHK that [i]some[/i] people can indeed be charitable, kind, and otherwise good people without any sort of religious background (regardless of their current beliefs), I remain highly skeptical that most people would.[/quote]

I will grant that due to the heavy focus some major religions place upon charity and helping one another, that your more devout Christians or Muslims (and feel free to include any other religion 'good works' plays a prominent role) may on average be inclined to donate and volunteer more than the rest of the population. I will have to see some studies before I accept that its substantially more. Sometimes however this charity comes with strings attached that end up causing significant harm themselves. (no condoms Africa aid) And as I've said many times, devout Christians in this country almost exclusively identify with the party that vehemently opposes most government 'charity' or foreign aid. So no matter how much they personally contribute, there's the very real possibility that they'd represent a net negative on charity if they got their way politically.

Also, I know its not your intention and a whole shitload of Christians make this mistake without even realizing it, but the implication that being kind or a good person somehow requires religion is ENORMOUSLY insulting to non-theists, not to mention entirely untrue. The suggestion that lack of religion makes someone even slightly less likely to be a kind and good person is baseless, arrogant, and insulting. Further, religious folks are the main stumbling block in most countries to equal rights for homosexuals and sometimes women. How can they be considered good people or have a higher likelihood of being good people when they support discrimination?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='GSP' post='1742655' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.58']EHK, I don't think anyone who has piped up in this thread wouldn't oppose theocracy. CiaranAnnrach is on to what I've been busting your balls about. Most of any positive benefit from religion rarely, if ever, make news. If I were to judge religion by American news headlines ALONE, I'd be right in your corner against this pervasive cancer. The problem is that silently, billions of devout people go about their lives without trying to politically enforce their beliefs or raise a finger against anybody. Judging all religion by the most horrible excesses of sub sects within a few isn't particularly accurate IMHO. It is what I and others find troubling about 'religions is a wretched cancer we'd all be better off without' blanket statements.[/quote]

Except its not an isolated few causing the trouble. Roughly 40% of this country last poll I saw don't believe in evolution (and do believe in creationism). That is an ENORMOUS level of willful stupidity. I've already trotted out the ways in which that is dangerous and damaging to the country. We've got entire countries operating under the (sometimes cultural, but usually...) religiously motivated, government mandated reality that women deserve less rights then men and homosexuals should have their rights restricted from an inability to marry upwards to execution. I still can't see tits or too much cursing on network TV and I guarantee I would be able to in the absence of religious folks. We had a fair chunk of our civil service filled via a religious/ideological litmus test, dragging hundreds from a single Fundy university of minimal educational merit. Abstinence only mandates was killing people in Africa last Administration and it always pops up for schools in this country, threatening to increase the spread of teen pregnancy and STD's.

I haven't even gotten to the true crazies and we already have a boatload of dangers and problems that can fairly be laid at the feet of religion. This is a fundamental, systematic problem. Maybe not in Canada, but it sure as fuck is here and its worse in many other places.

[quote]I can think of many examples where the bolded factors are tied to religious history/belief systems to suggest in many cases the two are inseparable.[/quote]

Oh I don't doubt that, but you're still gonna have distinctively different cultures and experiences in far off countries in the absence of religion.

[Kalbear]

Well, EHK, if you're going to correlate things like this person killing their child because of religion, you have to correlate people donating in the name of the lord as because of religion. You don't get to say that religion only causes bad stuff but never causes good.

A very good example of this is the ridiculously unbalanced success rates and recidivism of those who are addicts and fought the addiction through faith and those who don't. It's not even close to fair; it's like 10 times as likely to succeed if you find religion. This is something that statistically has been shown to give religion a leg up on. To my knowledge no real analysis of why people actually donate has been done, but I do know that the religious per capita donate more money than those who do not self-describe that way.

So shouldn't you attribute that to religion?

[Lord Mord]

EHK,

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1742512' date='Apr 2 2009, 12.07']Imagine if a 3rd of GM's cars broke down after 10,000 miles,[/quote]


Caveat emptor. While such a policy is at least partly bullshit when talking about cars, which can have problems the buyer shouldn't have to imagine ahead of time and accept as possible, it is not at all bullshit when talking about religion, since you can just, you know, stop at any time.

I understand you may want them to change their minds, but you make it sound as though we should be angry at people, or should try to diminish people because they believe in God.


I mean to say: where does it stop? Anything's okay so long as you aren't actually hitting them? My perspective is: if they're hurting someone, make them stop -- if they're not hurting anyone, leave them alone. And why not? What's the alternative? Beating someone up, if only figuratively, [i]solely[/i] because he holds a completely inoffensive precept? Just where do we get off?


[quote]a third of that third endangered every passenger in even minor wrecks,[/quote]

See above.


[quote]and an even tinier percentage simply blew up after a few hundred miles.[/quote]

Even [i]tinier[/i] than a third? Dare we dream? :P


I guess I don't see religion's present faults, at least in this country, as comparable to erratic explosions; to the extent that they are, they are in the far minority.


[quote]Wow...didn't really mean to have a 10 page car analogy, but there it is.[/quote]

It was an interesting read, so it's just as well really :)