Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Bill Starbuck' post='1740127' date='Mar 31 2009, 13.07']May I ask, what are the proportions of religious to non-religious charity? Have you statistics to hand? And, of course, given the context of your argument, it is insufficient to restrict ourselves to the past few years: what are the proportions since at least the start of recorded time?[/quote]

I don't think an examination of charity throughout history is all that necessary. It may have been at one point in time that religion was necessary for man to show empathy and offer support for their fellow man a thousand miles away. But as mass communications, modern concepts of human rights and secular based notions of common humanity have taken root, most people are perfectly capable of caring about and wishing to help the starving child in Ghana without any religious influence or motivation. As with many needs that religion once filled almost exclusively, there are now countless effective secular alternatives to it. The secular charity also has the added benefit of not coming with theological strings attached that may in fact exacerbate various problems. (Condoms + AIDS in Africa)

Religious charities have been doing these things for a long time and i'm willing to the possibility that they may be more numerous and competent in this regard. Even that religious people are on average more likely to encourage charitable giving. However religious folk in the US also identify with the party that is virulently against any sort of government welfare or foreign aid, so its quite likely that in the grand scheme of things their political efforts result in a net negative for overall for charitable works. Also, the increased charitableness of religious folk is hardly proven fact. And in their absence, its likely that some secular aid groups would pick up alot of the slack. It's something worth examining in either case.

[quote]So... What was up with Napolean's march to Russia then? Or Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia? Or the USA's insistence upon reaching the Pacific Ocean? I take it those were all pure exercises of religion? Not say, an opportunity to reap rewards combined with a few oppressive systems that simply demanded the lesser ranks die at the behest of the greater? Did you read ASoIaF? Why would any country ever invade another by your logic? Yet they do all the time with or without religious pretext.[/quote]

Conquest doesn't need a religious motivation. I never said it did. It sure as hell helps though. But unless you're saying that the Crusades still would have occurred and in equal numbers without religious motivation, I don't really see the point here.

[quote]The suicide bomber existed amongst the not too terribly religiously extreme Japanese before it became a commonplace feature of the middle east. Perhaps you've heard the term kamikaze before? It did not originate there. As long as war has existed, there have been fanatics and berserkers.[/quote]

The distinguishing factor is what you've already mentioned, an existing war. Last I checked we were not in open war with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Lebanon. And absent war and religion, what possible motivation could 19 educated, middle class individuals have to kill themselves 5,000 miles away and take almost 3,000 innocents with them?

[Shryke]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740161' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.34']Didn't we just finish a section on the Crusades, Inquisition, and 9-11?[/quote]

Didn't we just finish a section on a variety of other things just as horrible with no religion involved?

Apparently, absent religion, people will simply do the same for different reasons.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1740178' date='Mar 31 2009, 13.46']How are these in any way actually positively correlated with a reduction or removal of religion?[/quote]

Religion was a prime motivator for many of them. And with increasing secularism, they thankfully died away. As for the stuff you mention, yes bad shit happens without religion. But generally alot less bad shit than you have with religion.

Also, there is no Iraq or Afghanistan War without religion because there is no 9-11.

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

[quote]The distinguishing factor is what you've already mentioned, an existing war. Last I checked we were not in open war with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Lebanon. And absent war and religion, what possible motivation could 19 educated, middle class individuals have to kill themselves 5,000 miles away and take almost 3,000 innocents with them?[/quote]Why do you think they were absent war?

Did Gandhi's followers do what they did because of religion? Did they sacrifice themselves to the British in the name of Hinduism?

Did Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber do what they did because of religion? Did Charles Manson?

Stalin wiped out 20 million people in the Ukraine and areas around there before a war ever started. Was that because of religion?

It's harder to find examples of those willing to sacrifice their lives to kill a whole lot of people without war or religion involved, but some examples can be found in some of the Holocaust stories.

[quote]Religion was a prime motivator for many of them. And with increasing secularism, they thankfully died away. As for the stuff you mention, yes bad shit happens without religion. But generally alot less bad shit than you have with religion.[/quote]That's just your baseless opinion. Which are most motivated by religion? Which were removed because religion was removed?

What bad shit doesn't happen without religion? Have murders in the US gone down in the last 100 years? Have rapes? Has torturing people? Have hate crimes? You're correlating positive rights, but that wasn't the question; we're talking about negative actions. And you've shown nothing to indicate a correlation there.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740192' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.54']And absent war and religion, what possible motivation could 19 educated, middle class individuals have to kill themselves 5,000 miles away and take almost 3,000 innocents with them?[/quote]

[url="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9242/"]National identity.[/url]

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1740197' date='Mar 31 2009, 13.58']Why do you think they were absent war?

Did Gandhi's followers do what they did because of religion? Did they sacrifice themselves to the British in the name of Hinduism?[/quote]

Ummm...Gandhi and his followers under occupation and imperial dominion. That's the kind of direct and ever present affront that tends to inspire often justified drastic action.

[quote]Did Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber do what they did because of religion? Did Charles Manson?[/quote]

What exactly is the existence of individual psychos supposed to prove? Every society has serial killers and domestic dissidents prone to violence. I don't know of any of them loading up fertilizer trucks to blow up government buildings in Mongolia because they didn't like the Mongolian circus.

[quote]Stalin wiped out 20 million people in the Ukraine and areas around there before a war ever started. Was that because of religion?[/quote]

What is the fucking point of this? Yes, for the thousandth time, bad shit can happen without religion.

[quote]It's harder to find examples of those willing to sacrifice their lives to kill a whole lot of people without war or religion involved, but some examples can be found in some of the Holocaust stories.[/quote]

The Holocaust doesn't happen without religion. Persecution of Jews has been a cultural heritage of Christianity since its earliest years. You think someone gets the bright idea to slaughter all of them without that 2,000 years of cultural baggage?

[ljkeane]

I don't think that there is much evidence that the presence of religion leads to more conflict, there have already been a numerous examples of wars and atrocities that are the result of secular motivations and even with the Crusades while I think it's pretty clear that the crusade would not have taken place without religous motivations how many more wars within Europe would have taken place in the absence of the crusades?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740213' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.07']What exactly is the existence of individual psychos supposed to prove? Every society has serial killers and domestic dissidents prone to violence. I don't know of any of them loading up fertilizer trucks to blow up government buildings in Mongolia because they didn't like the Mongolian circus.[/quote]

Why does it matter how far McVeigh traveled v. how far Atta traveled?

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

[quote]You think someone gets the bright idea to slaughter all of them without that 2,000 years of cultural baggage?[/quote]No, but it's not religion at that point - it's culture. Just like Hutu and Tutsi killing each other isn't religion - it's culture.

[quote]What is the fucking point of this? Yes, for the thousandth time, bad shit can happen without religion.[/quote]The point is that unless you can find specific examples of atrocities that could never have happened without religion AND provide examples of places where atrocities were happening, then religion was removed, then everything was fine and dandy - all you're doing is the equivalent of declaring that religions are bad because they're more hilly. Systematized rape? Secular and nonsecular. Genocide? Same. Wars? Done for all sorts of things. Torture? Same. Suicides? All sorts of reasons. Violent suicides? Same. Oppression of sexes? All sorts of reasons. Oppression of races and cultures? Same.

Where are the differences? Can you find me one religious act that has no correlation in secular activity?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740223' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.11']Why does it matter how far McVeigh traveled v. how far Atta traveled?[/quote]

Because if Atta was still a psycho absent the psychotic inducing influence of religion, than he was MUCH more likely to blow up something local than to travel halfway around the world to do his business. All of the offenses Atta and the rest had against the US were at their heart religiously based. A privileged, middle class Saudi doesn't take near the interest in Israel-Palestine without the religious implications. They do not get into a murderous rage over a few thousand western soldiers sitting on a base in their desert at the request of their own government. Maybe's there's something in our cozy dealings with the corrupt and undemocratic Saudi royal family, but we prop up alot of unpopular, undemocratic regimes throughout the world. Only the Islamic ones try to blow us up in our own cities.

[quote]No, but it's not religion at that point - it's culture. Just like Hutu and Tutsi killing each other isn't religion - it's culture.[/quote]

And it doesn't become enshrined in culture in the first place without religion. This is cultural baggage that is primarily religiously created.

[quote]The point is that unless you can find specific examples of atrocities that could never have happened without religion AND provide examples of places where atrocities were happening, then religion was removed, then everything was fine and dandy - all you're doing is the equivalent of declaring that religions are bad because they're more hilly. Systematized rape? Secular and nonsecular. Genocide? Same. Wars? Done for all sorts of things. Torture? Same. Suicides? All sorts of reasons. Violent suicides? Same. Oppression of sexes? All sorts of reasons. Oppression of races and cultures? Same.

Where are the differences? Can you find me one religious act that has no correlation in secular activity?[/quote]

What, you didn't like witch burning and heretic torturing? Repression of science, literature, and learning isn't atrocious enough to qualify? But since you're now allowing historical counter-factuals, the Crusades don't happen. Inquisition doesn't happen. 9-11 doesn't happen and thus there is no Iraq War 2 and Afghan War. A fair number of the countless post-reformation wars in Europe probably don't happen. Not that religion was always the root cause, but it was a popular pretense and they'd have to find some other justification that may have been more difficult in its absence. Israel-Palestine is a whole new ballgame, there likely wouldn't even be an Israel to be a starting point for all that tension and conflict.

Also, your standard here is quite ridiculous, not to mention impossible. There is no place in the world throughout history where religion has suddenly and absolutely been removed, so your 'control group' here doesn't exist. Once again, bad shit happens without religion. But on top of that bad shit, religion is absolutely a major influence and/or primary cause behind yet even more bad shit. That's not really all that disputable.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740257' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.29']Because if Atta was still a psycho absent the psychotic inducing influence of religion, than he was MUCH more likely to blow up something local than to travel halfway around the world to do his business. All of the offenses Atta and the rest had against the US were at their heart religiously based.[/quote]

Accepting that arguendo, I don't see the point of the distinction. If people will blow themselves up to kill a bunch of people either way, I'm not sure why I would care too much whether they travel 3,000 miles out of religion or stay at home out of secular motivation. Surely the most important part of a suicide bombing, whether secular or religious, isn't how far the bomber traveled to blow himself up.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740266' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.33']Accepting that arguendo, I don't see the point of the distinction. If people will blow themselves up to kill a bunch of people either way, I'm not sure why I would care too much whether they travel 3,000 miles out of religion or stay at home out of secular motivation. Surely the most important part of a suicide bombing, whether secular or religious, isn't how far the bomber traveled to blow himself up.[/quote]

The distinction was premised on the 'for the sake of argument' acceptance that Atta would've been a murderous psycho with or without religion. That obviously is not reality. Maybe he would have been, but likely 17 of the 19 other 9-11 bombers wouldn't have been. And without the common religious bond, those final two psychos would be less likely to find eachother or have common cause if they did. Religion increases the likelihood of psychohood for all the widespread fervency + unthinking, unquestioning obedience to 'God says' + the infinite possibilities for what god might say' crap I mentioned earlier and in a thousand other threads before this.

Also, even if he was a psycho intent on killing himself and a bunch of others...I'd say the distinction is still pretty damned meaningful cause at least he's blowing up people over there instead of here.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740278' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.40']The distinction was premised on the 'for the sake of argument' acceptance that Atta would've been a murderous psycho with or without religion. That obviously is not reality. Maybe he would have been, but likely 17 of the 19 other 9-11 bombers wouldn't have been.[/quote]

You keep making empirical claims like that. What are you basing them on? What makes it "likely"?

In any case, I'm not sure how much we can learn about religion by examining the idiosyncratic example of 19 people who are unusual even for Muslim extremists (most of whom seem to have a very secular aversion to travelling long distance).

[Lord Mord]

Kalbear,

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1740227' date='Mar 31 2009, 12.14']No, but it's not religion at that point - it's culture. Just like Hutu and Tutsi killing each other isn't religion - it's culture.[/quote]


If you're trying to say that the religions have outgrown the cultures that initially fostered them, then I think that's fair. But otherwise, I would have to say that religion and culture are inextricable. Within any given religious doctrine a culture exists to follow it, or else the doctrine is meaningless. The words in themselves are not the religion -- the religion exists in the meaning given those words by the adherents. That meaning finds expression in their actions, which then becomes their culture.

Conversely, one of the most serious underpinnings of any culture is its religious positions or lack thereof. If the people of a culture fail to act to stop an abhorrent cultural practice, their religious convictions which in any way encouraged the activity or encouraged passivity in its face must come under scrutiny as well.


The two may be viewed as separate for some purposes, but the extent to which they are interdependent makes attributing phenomena of a particular size to one and not the other rather problematic unless you can draw some very clear delineation between the two.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1740289' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.44']You keep making empirical claims like that. What are you basing them on? What makes it "likely"?

In any case, I'm not sure how much we can learn about religion by examining the idiosyncratic example of 19 people who are unusual even for Muslim extremists (most of whom seem to have a very secular aversion to travelling long distance).[/quote]

This part.

[quote]Religion increases the likelihood of psychohood for all the widespread fervency + unthinking, unquestioning obedience to 'God says' + the infinite possibilities for what god might say' crap I mentioned earlier and in a thousand other threads before this.[/quote]

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1740296' date='Mar 31 2009, 15.49']This part.[/quote]

So your empirical claim is based on another, more elaborate unsupported empirical claim? Is it turtles all the way down, EHK?

[The Khaleesi]

I'm with EHK on this one. I think humankind have grown up, and religion is no longer anywhere near as important as human rights: ie: the right to an education, freedom of speech, equality under the law, the right to vote etc etc.
There are huge religions around the world which deny or limit human rights to millions of its adherents on an everyday basis.
Women who aren't allowed to drive or vote, who are forced into arranged marriages, who do not have the same rights as men under law, who have certain professions denied to them, who are denied education.
People who refuse medical treatment for themselves and their children, resulting in death and permanent injuries. (At present, the Taliban in Afghanistan are blocking polio vaccinations for children because of their religion)
Millions of people in Africa who will contract HIV/AIDs because they've been told that using condoms worsens the problem.
Muslims who believe that Christians, jews, atheists, etc are apostates and don't deserve to live.
In parts of Africa, people are still burnt as witches.
Some fundamentalists (of all stripes) are willing and happy to kill for their faith.

Maybe the problem isn't religion - maybe it's a lack of critical thinking.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='The Khaleesi' post='1740301' date='Mar 31 2009, 14.50']Maybe the problem isn't religion - [b]maybe it's a lack of critical thinking.[/b][/quote]

Which is pretty much a demanded, cornerstone value of every religion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Khalessi,

[quote]Maybe the problem isn't religion - maybe it's a lack of critical thinking.[/quote]

Religious faith does not preclude critical thinking.

[Kalnak the Magnificent]

[quote]And it doesn't become enshrined in culture in the first place without religion. This is cultural baggage that is primarily religiously created.[/quote]This shows some serious ignorance in how the Hutu/Tutsi conflict arose at all. It had nothing to do with religion.
[quote]What, you didn't like witch burning and heretic torturing?[/quote]What, you didn't like lynchings and torturing of civilians in gitmo?
[quote]But since you're now allowing historical counter-factuals, the Crusades don't happen. Inquisition doesn't happen. 9-11 doesn't happen and thus there is no Iraq War 2 and Afghan War. A fair number of the countless post-reformation wars in Europe probably don't happen. Not that religion was always the root cause, but it was a popular pretense and they'd have to find some other justification that may have been more difficult in its absence. Israel-Palestine is a whole new ballgame, there likely wouldn't even be an Israel to be a starting point for all that tension and conflict.[/quote]Why wouldn't the Crusades happen? Maybe under a different name, but Alexander didn't invade Asia because of religious views. Like I said - give me an example of something that could not happen without religion. Crusades are the same as Mongols, Napoleon, Germany, Alexander, Rome, the US and the Monroe doctrine, etc.
Inquisition? Okay, figure out how many people were killed in the Inquisition. Do you think it's more or less than the number of people sent to Gulags in Russia? Or the number of people reeducated in China?

9-11 didn't happen because of religion; the people that did this didn't do so because of their religious views, they did it because they believed that they were at war with the US. Before they went and did this they were wacking off to american porn.

[quote]Also, your standard here is quite ridiculous, not to mention impossible. There is no place in the world throughout history where religion has suddenly and absolutely been removed, so your 'control group' here doesn't exist. Once again, bad shit happens without religion. But on top of that bad shit, religion is absolutely a major influence and/or primary cause behind yet even more bad shit. That's not really all that disputable.[/quote]Sure, but you're saying that it's far worse than anything else. And that's really not supportable, especially given the atrocities that happened in the 20th century and the 21st and what their root causes are. The fact is, EHK - we've removed religion as a factor in a lot of places, and people still continue to fuck each other over. We know how this experiment ends. Rwanda has absolutely nothing to do with different religious views. It has zero factor. FGM in a lot of Africa has nothing to do with religion. South Africa wasn't oppressing black people until the 90s because of religion.

And yes, there are plenty of places where religion ceased to exist as a meaningful force. China in the 1950s. Russia in the 1930s. Cambodia in the 70s. Vietnam. Shockingly, in every single case there were massive atrocities committed - and in every single case religion played nothing of a factor in them. So we removed religion and....still got fucked.

So I've shown precise cases where religion was removed and the opposite of what you said would happen happened. Again, I ask - can you give one example where religion was removed and atrocities didn't occur? Just one?