Deadly Combination: ignorance, hate & religion

[Danmark]

Once again the tragic events in Boston April 15, 2013 involve the deadly combination of ignorance, religion and hatred. Once again the religion is Islam and the resources used to fuel the hate came from an Al Qaeda terrorist site. It becomes harder and harder not to blame Islam and religion in general, despite knowing that most Muslims are peace loving.

What triggered this topic is the news from a friend of the older of the two terrorists than he claimed the Bible was a 'cheap copy' of the Qur'an, despite the Qur'an having been written about 500 years after the NT.

Muslims argue vigorously that it is only a misunderstanding of their religion that results in acts of terror and that the Bible also has verses of violence and adherents who terrorize.

The question for debate is how much is ignorance to blame instead of religion?
does Islam play a particularly responsible role in the culture of terrorism?

[heavensgate]

Can't we just get rid of ALL these evil Abrahamic religions? Think how pleasant life would be?

I agree that this is what needs to be done.

The question is, "How can this be accomplished?"

My idea was to try to convince Christians to give it up and acknowledge it for the absurd myth that it is. The reason I pick on Christians is because most Christians are from highly developed countries that are advanced in education and "hopefully" intelligence.

Ahhhem!...Is there an elephant in the room? Are you missing something here old bean? It may just be that much of the developed world owes much of its education and wealth to the ethics of Christ, (like forgive, seek out others welfare, etc, etc)
It is such a pity that you cannot see as far as your limited years to see how the vacuum you want to create will pan out for your kids, grandkids etc.

If the intelligent countries would toss in the towel on these absurd mythologies then we would be in a far better position to be setting an example for the more backward countries that preach Islamic extremism.

We're never going to convince Muslims to toss in the towel on Allah and the Qur'an as long as we're standing here holding up the equally ridiculous Jesus and the Bible. They both have got to go.

As long as the more advanced technological civilizations continue to cling to the absurdity of worshiping the demigod Jesus as if that makes sense, then there really is no hope for the world.

It's truly sad that seemingly otherwise intelligence people continue to cling to such absurd ancient mythologies. It's actually surreal.

I think it just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are indeed just highly evolved great apes who still just think like monkeys in many ways.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 21 by Danmark]

This is my very point, Pinker ignores somehow the very foundations behind some of Eisners findings. That is that the reformation actually reformed some of mans behaviour.
I would have responded sooner but the moderator put me off.

The pattern of violence, and for example slavery, don't seem to have been affected one whit by 'the Reformation.' In terms of overall world wide violence, cruelty and wars, what is your statistical basis for crediting 'the reformation' with this change. The chart published in this subtopic shows a significant drop off after WWI. Do you you credit 'the Reformation' with that?

Only two points here.
Tell me, historically, who was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery and what was his religion?
Secondly, in an evolutionary scenario as Pinker tries to paint it, how does evolution, even in the field of social/moral developments make us suddenly more socially responsible overnight. Sometimes man you can have so much honey at one time the thought of it makes you sick. Same with war.
Other respondents have ably pointed out the various factors that contribute to those stats. None of them are that we are becoming nicer generally.

By crediting the Protestant reformation for the abolition of slavery you are only off by 300 years. Your implication fails to account for the fact that slavery was and has been justified by some powerful Christian influences.
"Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

This "Christian" view is still with us today in virulent form such as the KKK and by reference to the Bible directly:
Noah's Curse : The Biblical Justification of American ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0198032609
Stephen R. Haynes A. B. Curry Chair of Religious Studies Rhodes College - 2002 - ‎History
The Biblical Justification of American Slavery Stephen R. Haynes A. B. Curry ... Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, first published in 1963.

What your argument overlooks is that Christians in America in the 17th thru at least the 19th Centuries lined up on both sides of the slavery question, largely dependant on their geography and economic interests.

[Elijah John]

heavensgate stated:

----------------

Ahhhem!...Is there an elephant in the room? Are you missing something here old bean?
.....
It is such a pity that you cannot see as far as your limited years to see how the vacuum you want to create will pan out for your kids, grandkids etc.

[/quote][/quote]

Moderator Warning


These remarks are uncalled for and unnecessarily personal. Please refrain from this and address only the content of the post without characterizing the poster, or reference to their age.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 32 by Danmark]

You need to give me more without referring me to other sites.
From what I see you are merely using fringe elements to justify a general and unjustified slur on Christianity.
I could even justifiably argue that those fringes were unduly influenced by Darwinian theology. How that pans into the KK and racism generally... I am not sure why you would even raise this in a serious discussion about Christianity, but I suppose you will have your reasons.
You say "By crediting the Protestant reformation for the abolition of slavery you are only off by 300 years"...how so?
Wilberforce was towards the end of the reformation era. I was not positing that the reformation per se effected the abolition of slavery, but it certainly provided the conditions for it.
On the other hand, can you tell me when slavery began in England and Europe and US?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 32 by Danmark]

You need to give me more without referring me to other sites.
From what I see you are merely using fringe elements to justify a general and unjustified slur on Christianity.
I could even justifiably argue that those fringes were unduly influenced by Darwinian theology. How that pans into the KK and racism generally... I am not sure why you would even raise this in a serious discussion about Christianity, but I suppose you will have your reasons.
You say "By crediting the Protestant reformation for the abolition of slavery you are only off by 300 years"...how so?
Wilberforce was towards the end of the reformation era. I was not positing that the reformation per se effected the abolition of slavery, but it certainly provided the conditions for it.
On the other hand, can you tell me when slavery began in England and Europe and US?

I've supported my claims with citations to the facts that support the arguments. You have not done so and criticize me for it. Your complaint suggests the opposite of what this forum stands for. Please review the Rules, and in particular:

Rule 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim. The forum has a good page on evidence here.

Your charge of a 'slur' on Christianity is not well taken. I specifically credited Christianity and Christians with being on BOTH sides of the slavery issue. In fact, the church I grew up in split from the Methodist church on the issue of abolition.

"[B. T.] Roberts was a staunch abolitionist and early Free Methodists derived their name in part from their opposition to slavery. Many of the early Free Methodists were active in the operation of the Underground Railroad. They were highly critical of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from which many of them had come, because it did not boldly denounce slavery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._T._Roberts

The bad side of Christianity is equally well documented:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]

I think you have just confirmed my suspicion that you are using fringe elements to justify your own position. (the book cover of some turn of 20th century publication?)
Please, give me a break.
Does this represent Christianity, or rather would it represent the bible? No in both cases.
Please, tell me what the content is behind the book cover. If you cannot tell me, then what are you supposing I do with that information?
I am not supposing that there are many aberrations in Christendom, and I use the word flippantly, but in all the aberrations, do any of them reflect Christ? Perhaps it may be better if you turn your efforts to critiquing the bible itself. I am reasonably educated into how the politicised church and fringe elements have not a great deal to do with 'truth', and neither was Christ. So your criticisms need to get much closer to the source for a meaningful debate.
You will know what I am saying by your own history as stated.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 36 by heavensgate]

There's nothing "fringe" about the Methodist church.
"Christianity" is much more than some individual's idea about what it should be. It has a history and a legacy and it is just as culture bound as it was in the times of Moses
[ “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."] as it was during the time of Jesus when he called a Canaanite woman 'a dog.' “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.�
I will correct you a 2d time. I am not saying all Christians or all of Christianity is bad, but it comes with a legacy of human frailty and failure. I grew up in a Christian church in the 50's and 60's and knew and loved many of the fine people I met there, but there was an underlying anti Jew, anti Catholic, and anti black sentiment despite many words to the contrary. This was not in the South, but in the NW. These semi hidden prejudices came out in bad jokes and snide references, including by ministers, tho' generally only in private.

Here's a current example of how it feels to be on the other side, just the opening passage from http://www.christenacleveland.com/2013/ ... he-church/ :

WHEN I LEARNED THAT I WAS A NIGGER

Every summer, my mom would sign us up for vacation bible school (VBS) programs at local churches so we could experience God in diverse settings. The summer I turned six, we attended VBS at an all-white church in a neighboring city. During recess, my brother and I were so engrossed in our tetherball game that we didn’t hear the teacher calling us to return to the classroom. Exasperated, she yelled at the top of her lungs, “Get in here, niggers!!� Being six and all, I had no idea what the word nigger meant; I just knew that it referred to me and that it was negative. I ducked my head in shame and ran toward the classroom. The teacher’s words violently contradicted the VBS theme: “God loves all the children in the world� and made me question whether God’s love was meant for me too.

The church taught me that God’s love is only for the white kids.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 37 by Danmark]

Me in Red

There's nothing "fringe" about the Methodist church.
"Christianity" is much more than some individual's idea about what it should be. It has a history and a legacy and it is just as culture bound as it was in the times of Moses
[ “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."] as it was during the time of Jesus when he called a Canaanite woman 'a dog.' “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.�

A different slant than what I would give it but I get what you are saying
I will correct you a 2d time. I am not saying all Christians or all of Christianity is bad, but it comes with a legacy of human frailty and failure.

Absolutely correct

I grew up in a Christian church in the 50's and 60's and knew and loved many of the fine people I met there, but there was an underlying anti Jew, anti Catholic, and anti black sentiment despite many words to the contrary. This was not in the South, but in the NW. These semi hidden prejudices came out in bad jokes and snide references, including by ministers, tho' generally only in private.

I hear you. I was born in New Zealand and migrated to Australia in the early 70’s. There were racial tensions there as in Australia as well, that were more, I am thinking culturally based than racial. Yes, I was raised Catholic, but the Catholics had their derogatory chants against the Anglicans (Episcopal) as well. Anyway, on learning much of the history of the white Australia policy etc in my time, (born 54) it is clearly cultural and political.
The problem with the “church� is I think being too gutless to swim against the tide. But this is the church which is largely homogenised into the political and cultural fabric of the society it is in.
Now, you cannot blame Christ Himself for this. He said, “in the world you will have trouble�. The church is too often comfortable, I agree. You must take all of my posts in the sense of defending the most fundamental truths from the bible. I can’t really, neither want to defend aberrations from the truth in Christ.
At the same time, a little bit of understanding how the political church got to the point it has (all denominations including Methodist) would help the debate especially for the aid the detractors.

Here's a current example of how it feels to be on the other side, just the opening passage from http://www.christenacleveland.com/2013/ ... sm-i-learn... :

I read this. And how tragic it is. You know as I have said I was raised a catholic. I could have been raised a Buddhist and still not been a Buddhist. Raised a catholic does not make you Christian.
What detractors of Christianity do not I think ‘want’ to embrace is the fact that there are myriad ways that people come into contact with “church’ for want of a better word. Some seek it out as a perfect opportunity (if you were a paedophile), some as a ‘job’, some as people with a social conscience, some with devotion, some as a critic, some as….. it goes on and on.
But this is human. I doubt there is any human organisation that is without these problems that challenge the ethos.
My point is, Christ is not like that, and much of the genuine expression of Christ is not really known in the human politico structures we see about us. It is more in individuals from many walks. This is what Christ also said. “In the world, you will have trouble�. It is a problem for the Christian, purely because they do not really fit. They certainly do not fit either in the political and humanistic expressions of the 'church'. Now we are just talking here of the megalithic churches of the western world. Christ is actually doing something quite different in say Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Chad, etc. There is little time for Christians there for this kind of navel gazing. They are truly having trouble as Christ said they would. Not a real good advertisement for Christianity, but what would make someone believe with that kind of strength?
I assume you will know what I am talking about.

[Danmark]

My point is, Christ is not like that, and much of the genuine expression of Christ is not really known in the human politico structures we see about us. It is more in individuals from many walks. This is what Christ also said. “In the world, you will have trouble�. It is a problem for the Christian, purely because they do not really fit. They certainly do not fit either in the political and humanistic expressions of the 'church'. Now we are just talking here of the megalithic churches of the western world. Christ is actually doing something quite different in say Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Chad, etc. There is little time for Christians there for this kind of navel gazing. They are truly having trouble as Christ said they would. Not a real good advertisement for Christianity, but what would make someone believe with that kind of strength?
I assume you will know what I am talking about.

I agree that no matter what the belief or who one's heroes are, individuals and the organizations built around those beliefs and heroes frequently, perhaps inevitably fall far short of the ideals around which they were built. Whether it is racism or homophobia or ethnic bigotry, there will be people who use their ideology or religion (or anything else) to justify their beliefs and actions.

A Mark Twain quote comes to mind, "Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one." We must have inner beliefs of goodness that are independent of our belief system, of our religions.

I fully realize this sentiment flies in the face of those who claim goodness or morality can only come from God. I disagree with them, in part because I don't believe there is any God in the traditional sense of orthodox theism. I believe the unconscious mind is mistaken for God. One of my reasons for this is found in recognizing the fundamental basis of all tribal religion, including the roots of all Abrahamic religions in particular. They all arose out of culture bound traditions that had the 'tribe' as their chief concern, and everyone outside the tribe was 'the other.' This is how the genocide and land stealing recorded in the Torah is justified. We've seen it in racism and in homophobia. Even today we have 'Christian' countries in Africa, and Islamic States that have laws condemning homosexuals and non believers to death.

I agree that these groups violate what I think are the ideals that should and perhaps do exist in those religions. Unfortunately, when they turn to their scriptures some of the fundamentalists in these religions find scriptural support to promote their evil beliefs. That is why I insist there should be a core of morality beyond mere religion that is our better guide.

[SailingCyclops]

Once again the tragic events in Boston April 15, 2013 involve the deadly combination of ignorance, religion and hatred.

All very "Biblical" exhortations.

It becomes harder and harder not to blame Islam and religion in general, despite knowing that most Muslims are peace loving.

This is correct. The blame is clearly religion.

Muslims argue vigorously that it is only a misunderstanding of their religion that results in acts of terror and that the Bible also has verses of violence and adherents who terrorize.

All the "holy" books which emanate from Jewdayo-Christianity contain exhortations to irrational violence --every one of them! Every one of them can be read as approving charity/love or violence/terror. The choice is entirely up to the reader.

The question for debate is how much is ignorance to blame instead of religion?

Religion and ignorance are one and the same thing.

does Islam play a particularly responsible role in the culture of terrorism?

No! History tells us that every Jewdayo-Christian religion is equally capable of the same brutality and terror. Why? Because they are all based on the very same literary foundation of fear, ignorance, superstition, and irrational thinking. It's all the same disease from the same source.