No, you're just bitter. I know just as well as you do what kind of trouble evangelical Christians cause for nonbelievers, but I recognize that those troublemakers are in the minority by far. Of course a religious follower follows the rules of his religion. What's your point? "Live and let live" pertains to other groups, not the same one; it doesn't mean that culture and tradition suddenly count for nothing. The Israeli government is a secular organization whose motivations for their actions against Palestinians have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with national security.
have you ever heard the phrase "the personal is political"? i'm not bitter about anything. i just know that what you believe is an important part of how you view the world. i also know that people who believe strongly in the irrational are bound to make other dangerous and irrational decisions. in a country where officials who make law are elected by local majorities, you can often see the oppressive beliefs of the religious enshrined as law for all to follow. the federal government is not as reflective of this phenomenon because the parts of the country dominated by conservative theists is offset by the other parts that value the secular over the religious. however, in the united states, governmental power is shared between the central government and the states, and there are some places in this country where the laws are completely absurd as they apply to privacy, sex acts, access to medical procedures, etc. the basic cause of this is the "harmless" beliefs of religious people. whoever may be a non-believer or a person of a minority religious sect is robbed of a voice at that point, or robbed of the right to practice what they feel is as crucial to their existence as prayer on sunday is to a christian. the isreali government would not exist if the european jews hadn't petitioned for a return of their rightful biblical homeland. the government is made up entirely of jews, and has continuously sought to gain territory at the cost of the palestinians who have little or no weaponry, no economy to speak of, no recognized government (despite democratic elections), and no recognized state. its like the school bully with ten of his friends to back him up picking on a retarded kid in a wheelchair. so, you could not be more wrong. the israeli-palestinian conflict, the india-pakistan conflict, the kosovo conflict, and innumerable others have all had differences in religious belief as their primary cause. these are full scale wars, not limited conflicts between a few troublemakers of each religion. these religiously based governments take action against their enemies with the support of their people - the helpful neighbors, the schoolyard playmates, the teachers and professors with their benign devotion to a religion. without such belief, this support could not exist, if the support did not exist, the war could not be prosecuted. 2+2=4.
The reverse songs were pretty scary, especially when I'm sitting here all alone in the dark! The scariest being Led Zeppelin - Staircase to heaven...scary much because he just sang the song. The beatles - I'm so tired, was also scary for some reason. Even though I understand that it could have been faked because you didn't make out what was there when it played normally, but even so...it had a scary feeling over it nontheless...
You have switched subjects from everyday people to government officials who are in charge of such laws. The United States is a union of republics, not democracies, remember. Yawn. Stop putting words in other people's mouths and show me some sources.
so now government officials all of a sudden aren't everyday people? good one. let me give you a quick lesson in US government. the people pick their representatives based on a political platform. these representatives serve as proxies for the people in their area and vote supposedly in their interests, based on the platform that they represent, on any given issue. in a democracy, the people are the government, and the beliefs of the majority body electing representatives play a crucial role in dictating the particulars of law and acceptable behavior in our society. and no, i don't remember. the united states is one republic divided into smaller districts called states. the states have their own governments which are bound together by their obligations to the greater good of the republic. however, if you read the constitution, you can clearly see that there are some areas of law that the federal government has no authority over. the responsibilities for these regulations and provisions fall to the states. for example, providing and dictating the curriculum of public schools, providing for the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents...etc. the states have the authority to regulate particular things unless the federal government can find a constitutional interest in interfering with said regulation. good response. why don't you try making an argument that a six-year-old couldn't shred.
Argument? Where? That was an invitation to prove yourself. (Go re-read the US Constitution, by the way. Go on. Do it.)
There would be those that might argue such a position, but not the adherents of the religion, who are the most important people to ask when talking about what they believe. A people believing that theirs is the most appropriate faith for themselves does not necessarily mean that they believe it the most appropriate faith for all, and I have it from a reliable source that such is not the case for Hindus. You have completely ignored that a member of the religious caste, the people who would be the most appropriate people to ask about the beliefs of their religion, has said this. Of course, I don't expect you to yield to the knowledge of someone whom you have no respect for simply because of their beliefs, so please ignore this portion of the post at will. Yes, diversity is great amongst Hindus, I agree. The point is, Hindus from one sect, especially Brahmin, are not ignorant of the beliefs of other sects of Hinduism. In fact, they spend a great deal of time studying all of the sects of Hinduism. You ignored the meaning of the word "Hindu" as defined literally, which means removal of darkness/ignorance. It has been interpreted to me by a member of the religious caste, who are the people within the religion who have the authority to do such, that anyone can be considered a Hindu regardless of whether or not outsiders would consider them Hindus. What defines a Hindu is not the set of practices from the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, but any effort to remove oneself from spiritual ignorance. Any such person can be considered Hindu, regardless of the specific rituals they practice or the cosmology they believe in, and you have not addressed this interpretation because it does not fit in with your preconceived notion of what constitutes Hinduism, which is very typically narrow. While most of your argument here makes sense, I would take issue with your assertion that many Hindus don't believe that others are "fit" for their religion. Hindus are traditionally minded people; they are very conservative, and as such, they have a tendency to stick with what they have to not be very accepting of change. The reason why evangelical religions have not had much success among Hindus is because the religion is flexible enough, and has enough depth, so that whatever new ideas come in with a new religion don't conflict with any of the ideas of Hinduism, so they see no reason to change their practices because they are seen as fundamentally the same as the old. Basically, the attitude among Hindus is "if it isn't broke, don't fix it."
i made a point. belief is not benign, passive, or harmless. zealotry is allowed to exist by virtue of the fact that a baseless and unproveable belief can be taken to absurd extremes and remain as justifiable as similar moderate beliefs. zealotry is further supported by the tacit approval of millions of believers in a particular religion or cause that do not make attempts to deny abusers of their belief the ultimate source of their justification. catholics, for example, believe that abortion is basically murder. when a zealot murders an abortion doctor, how can the chrch denounce it with any real authority? you murdered a murderer, so now you must be punished? come on. we have the death penalty for people in our society who commit murder, how is that any different? the assurance of moral righteousness created by authoritative belief without evidence is the direct cause of the abuse and destruction that religious zealots are responsible for. the people who ascribe to such a belief, even in a moderate way, lend validity and acceptability to this feeling of moral superiority, from which issues forth abuse, intolerance, and oppression. a house cannot stand up without a foundation - if the church is like a house, then its foundation is made up of people of moderate belief and the top of the roof is made up of zealots and abusers. if you took away the foundation, the whole thing would fall apart. therefore, people who support and aid the aims of the church indirectly aid the people guilty of the destruction caused in its name.
This is a contradiction only under the assumption that the death penalty is condoned by the Catholic church, or, if you wish, that "two wrongs make a right." I agree that zealotry should be condemned by moderate believers, but I do not agree that belief is in this case the cause of complacency. A good Christian should condemn the murder of an abortion doctor; Christianity as a general belief system does not promote killing of any kind. A more probable cause is that people simply don't want to deal with it. It's the same reason why people have been stabbed and left to bleed to death on a busy sidewalk. Someone else will take care of it.
What makes you think Catholics are not upset with those idiots? We are, but we are also upset with crime and wars and all forms of suffering people inflict on each other. You see the murder of abortion doctors as an isolated thing; Catholics see all the terrible things about this world and find no difference between a Florida doctor murdered by some religious lunatic and an Iraqi child murdered by an American soldier. Catholics are quite sad about the world, and understand only a higher power can save it.
i think, in light of the evidence provided by at least 3 crusades, 1 genocide, the spanish inquisition, and at least 50,000 dead "witches" all across europe - the catholic church historically condones the death penalty for an entire range of offences. and don't tell em that what the catholic church says now suddenly erases their history of extreme violence toward those with different points of view or lifestyles. wrong. the point i am making is that the belief - specifically an undemonstrable belief that your way of life is superior because a GOD said it is correct is what creates zealots. irrational thought begets irrational action. that is basic logic. the people who subscribe to such a belief form a financial and popular support base for the widespread dissemination and encouragment of this kind of irrational thinking. it is both a simple and direct line of causation.
when, in either the course of history or your own experience have you ever seen even the smallest shred of evidence that any beings other than humans are responsible for the actions of humanity as they relate to the fate of the world? where do you get the idea that god would save the world if god has turned it into the tragic cesspool that it already is?
By your argument, Germany is an evil nation and anything Germans say or do now cannot possibly make up for what they did half a century ago. I don't fully understand why the Catholic church did what it did. But I have a lot of German friends and I can't understand how their parents could possibly have accept the Nazi regime. Moreover, if I ask them, they say they don't understand it themselves. The lesson I take from this is that things only seem clearly black-and-white when we don't look closely. The Catholic church can't possibly be as bad as its detractors claim, or as good as its supposed to be. And I see a lot of killing being done in the name of democracy, and that makes me think people may oppose democracy in the future based on their inability to fully understand it. Especially since historians have the habit of only recording humanity's mistakes.
And that's why Catholics will never do anything to make changes, hence it is the reason to eradicate religion so that people will take responsibility for their actions rather than sitting on their asses waiting for their god.
Eradicating religion wont get rid of couch potatoes... atleast we get up and kneel at night Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
firstly, germans probably can't ever make up for the holocaust, but they at least have done their best to apologize for it and take measures to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. the catholic church has never so much as uttered a word of apology for the crusades or the inquisition, or the extermination of the cathars, and violence continues to be done in the name of the christian god. the nazis actually stopped years ago, and didn't have a 15 century long legacy of violence and destruction. the two things are apples and oranges. a lot of nazi supporters were forced into supporting the regime because they feared the SS and violent reprisals for speaking out. in addition to that, many germans actually did not appear to realize the extent of their government's violence toward the jews. they may have been aware of prison camps, but were not fully aware of death camps. catholics don't have the same kind of excuse. you don't see a lot of killing done in the name of democracy, you see a lot of killing done and then justified after the fact by nominally declaring a war in the name of democracy. the truth is that that the war in the middle east right now is really about jews vs. mulims, and america has become entangled in it due to our unswerving and pigheaded support of isreal. the fact that our economic interests are at stake have nothing to do with the reasons we became embroiled in the war to begin with, and to say that it is a war to install democracy there or protect democracy here is just a thinly veiled attempt to act like we are doing the "right thing". the "democracy" being put in place in iraq is basing its laws on muslim religious laws, that forbid all kinds of things that are highly valued in a democracy. not only that, but iraq is not now and never has been a threat to american freedom or democracy. and by the by, if it were put to a vote tomorrow and i had a choice between what passes for democracy in america now and benevolent dictatorship, i'd pick the latter, because we have made a total mockery of representative government.
I'm still waiting for you to back this assertion up. (FWIW, I have heard a lot of Christians express hatred for Islam; not so much from the Jews.) Whoever said anything about erasing the past? People have constantly killed and caused suffering since the dawn of man; big shocker there. But the past is the past, and the fact stands that the Catholic church does not currently condone killing. There are plenty of zealous religious organizations killing thousands annually, plenty of better choices to make a scapegoat for humanity's eternal problems. So, as long as my zealous nature is not justified in the name of the divine, I'm fine in your book. (Hello October Revolution!) Or perhaps your argument has more to do with irrationality, of which apparently atheists are incapable. After all, if just anyone could behave and think irrationally, then you'd have no one to single out! News flash: The Nazis (not the same thing as the Germans, by the way), as well as countless others, have shown themselves to be quite willing to hate and kill without apology. Did any figure of Nazi authority ever apologize for the atrocities for which they were responsible? There are still people who claim to be Nazis who want everyone unlike them killed or oppressed. The Catholic church has long shaped more peaceful doctrines for itself, on the other hand; so perhaps your characterization of these two organizations as apples and oranges is accurate.
Did you check your facts before you made these accusations? Did you begin with an understanding of the history that preceded the crusades? Doesn't the fact that many Christians - including Catholics - suffered under the inquisitions show that it wasn't a unanimous event that can simply be attributed to faith in God? Pope John Paul II did present an apology for the atrocities committed by Catholics, both to Muslims and to the Eastern Orthodox church, which was attacked during the 4th crusade. Catholics also apologized for acts committed during the inquisitions. But the question is whether a defensive action instigated by a leader whose people are under threat itself counts as an atrocity. Some think the Pope actually apologized for too much. Unless you are saying that the West should have let someone like Hitler have world domination, how do suppose they would be stopped? Nobody thinks the need to put a stop the the Third Reich excuses any of the atrocities committed by Western soldiers, so should the West apologize to Germany for its resistance? And hasn't September 11 at least made the crusades more comprehensible, even if it doesn't excuse any of the atrocities that were committed and are still being committed? Should we ask, what would atheist America have done? Turn the other cheek? If they would, there would be a lot of irony there... The truth is, everyone has something to apologize for. Nobody has a truly just cause. But that you are ignorant of apologies by Catholic and even Evangelical Christians, suggest you aren't really interested in such apologies anyway. You simply want to point out someone's evil as the final, condemning and irredeemable truth. If a Christian did this, you would have been up in arms about us sending people to hell for their sins (as if we could). In the first place, do you assume all Christians supported every crusade? You would leave out half of Christianity with such an assumption, namely the Eastern church. In the second place, do you assume that every Christian was actively involved in the crusades? If ignorance or apathy excuses Germans under the Nazi regime, can you explain why you don't apply this standard to Christians under Pope Innocent's regime? This is a very insightful observation. Democracy doesn't ensure justice anymore than dictatorship. A majority of people can make the same mistakes a single leader would make, and feel equally justified. If this benevolent dictator declared war against terrorism, would you have followed him? Probably not. But doesn't that prove that the morality you follow is a personal belief - your own brand of "faith" (something you trust fundamentally)? Democracy is built on societies who follow only those who reflect their own interests, and won't tolerate anything less. If the decision to retaliate was in your hands, would you give in to the majority vote, or welcome their revolution when these people don't feel safe anymore? Whether we like it or not, people have supported leaders who went to war against other countries. People have supported leaders who stuck with peaceful means and were unsuccesful, and people have supported leaders who eventually resorted to war and were succesful. By supporting democracy (by voting), you implicitly support the election of such leaders. That's the price of democracy. The price of a dictatorship or monarchy is no doubt similar. For better or worse, we share the consequences of whatever authority we stand under. We may even be judged by their laws. But we are still responsible for our own actions. Whether they take their power by force or public support, those who will fight will fight, if not against an enemy, then against those who stand in the way of fighting that enemy. The problem usually isn't the ideologies - communism could work just as well as democracy - but the sins that corrupt power and inform decisions. For these we need to apologize and ask forgiveness. But as long as we see people as demons, we will direct our fear and self-righteousness on ourselves, and simply propagate the problem further. No, this is in the first place a spiritual war, waged in the heart of every man deciding which values he personally supports, regardless of what his circumstances are. Eph. 6:10-18 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.
