Skip to main content

Over and over again the brutal fools repeat their atrocities:

Thousands of Muslims protected by Chadian soldiers fled the capital, Bangui, in a mass exodus on Friday. Their flight follows months of attacks by Christian militias on anyone perceived as supporting the former government led by Muslim rebels, which is blamed for atrocities. The rebels seized power last year in the Central African Republic, a largely Christian country, and ruled until last month. In Bangui, a convoy of about 500 cars, trucks and motorcycles headed for Chad, which is mostly Muslim. One man who tumbled from an overloaded truck was killed and mutilated by a mob, witnesses said. “It really is a horrific situation,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director for Human Rights Watch. “All over Bangui, entire Muslim neighborhoods are being destroyed and emptied.” The aid group Doctors Without Borders said Friday that tens of thousands of Muslims already had fled to Chad and Cameroon. The United Nations refugee agency said that almost 9,000 people had fled to Cameroon in just the past 10 days.
Now it is the turn of Christians to brutally retaliate against Muslim communities because of Muslim atrocities.

I have hated religion since becoming aware of Roman Catholic atrocities against Protestants and Protestant atrocities against Roman Catholics in Ireland, and earlier in continental Europe.

Retaliation and revenge over and over again. It is insane. Religion is an insanity, a madness which divides humanity and murders peace.

Religion encourages slavery, the brutal domination of women and children and ethnic minorities and desperately needs to reform itself before it points an accusing finger at nonbelievers.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am an atheist ... (8+ / 0-)

    I don't believe in God, but I believe in religion. It provides a powerful sense of identity and community that is mostly beneficent in people's lives.

    Like any other identity - nationalism, ethnicity, tribe, caste -- religion can be mobilized to slaughter people.

  •  So what have Jains done that makes you hate them? (13+ / 0-)

    I think the worst excesses of 'religious violence' are done simply using 'religion' as a cover by people who simply feel they can more easily attain the power and wealth they crave using religion than, for instance, politics.

    Do you honestly think the various factions fighting for power would be any less brutal to each other if they were all atheists?

    •  Religion, being irrational in and of itself, (8+ / 0-)

      allows people to be manipulated in irrational ways. The more 'devout' the person is, the easier it is to accomplish.

      •  I'm quite devout and I surely don't fit into that (6+ / 0-)

        statement. Ask anyone that knows me; I'm not irrational in any sense of the word trying and trying to manipulate me is akin to bending steel with your teeth.

        I'm not in a church that requires lockstep adherence to either authority or point of view. Nor would I ever be.

        I think you need to rethink your assumption.

        What I think may occur is that churches that proffer authoritarian belief (and yes, there are many) end up with a herd of followers ideologically on issues related and unrelated to "God" and/or social issues, particularly poverty and the state of humanity in general. Sort of the equivalent to the old saying, 'Birds of a feather flock together' (which, by the way, does have some obvious truth to it).

        This kind of religious authoritarianism is generally paternalistic (I can't think of a modern case where that is not so, but there may be!) and not only encourages, but often demands, adherence to restrictions on personal freedoms and liberties (think about beliefs which purport to support alleged Biblical reasons for men always being heads of households, for instance).

        I think I understand what you are feeling, but I don't think your written words do service to it. I could be wrong, though.

        One thing that clearly doesn't work is broad-brushing which appears to be what you have done.

        I'm not offended by what you typed, you are perfectly able to hold this opinion if you like, but it seems to me that re-thinking this assumption might be in order.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 12:07:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you accept ALL religions as valid? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO

          Or are some more irrational than others?

          There is one thing all religions hold in common - they are rationally implausible and require a leap of faith to hold a belief in them. I suppose the reason many people are believers is that they are emotionally plausible and satisfying.

          For most of the existence of man, 'God' was pluralistic and based on humans, animals or natural objects or any combination thereof.

          The highly paternalistic monotheistic Abrahamic religions are a relatively recent development and not held by a significant number of the world's population.

          •  I suppose that first question is a really good (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama, Catte Nappe, VirginiaJeff, Skyye

            one.

            I can't say I accept all religions (or not) because I don't have experience with ALL religions. I was speaking to my personal experience, not the experience I don't have.

            If one looks at religion in general, there's probably a case to be made for "irrational" in all cases, particularly so by non-believers. That's not a poke with a stick, I can support that in that I was not always a believer.

            My neighbor is a well known Pagan and often has celebrations at his home, and people wear garb quite different than what I am accustomed to. Another neighbor commented that wearing a helmet with horns on it was ridiculous. I chuckled and commented that it's no more ridiculous than the garb my Priest (a woman) wears, and the higherups even get the pointy hats:)

            Symbolism has it's place in our lives, and it's omni-present in religion. Wedding rings are a pretty classic example in those religious and not.

            Like I say with the issue of abortion, don't like it? Don't do it.    

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 02:43:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  You're not irrational in any sense? (0+ / 0-)

          But you believe a robed man walked on water 2000 years ago? And that he brought back corpses, rotting for days in the hot desert sun, to life?

          OK then.

      •  Right, 'cause Stephen Colbert is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, Crider

        one irrational guy.  I'd love to watch you lecture him on how easily manipulated he is.

        It's a shame you missed your chance to educate Martin Luther King Jr.,  Dorothy Day, Cesar Chavez, Mahatma Gandhi, et al.

        I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

        by VirginiaJeff on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:11:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stephen Colbert had a love fest on his (0+ / 0-)

          show with Archbishop Dolan, who is nothing short of a scoundrel and then appeared at another roasting love fest with this man.  My opinion of Colbert went down the tubes after all that.

          How can a man like Colbert who touts progressive views hang out with Dolan, who covered up child abuse and thinks women have no rights to reproductive choice?

          I would have no problem facing Colbert on this.

    •  Jains .... (3+ / 0-)

      The rare exception that proves the rule.

      All religions have to do is point the accusing fingers back at themselves and indulge in a little reformation.

    •  The problem isn't religion (8+ / 0-)

      It's politics disguised as religion. Religion is useful for mobilizing people in ways that mightn't be feasible if the political agenda were just spelled out. That may not always be strictly true, but even when religion isn't invoked, the real mobilizing force is politics whipped up to a frenzy of religious proportions.

      •  For much of the last 2000 years it has been (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        terremoto

        religion disguised as politics. This was one of the reasons for the large influx of immigrants to America.

        Unfortunately, they managed to drag it along with them.

        Both the US and the UK have a National Prayer Breakfast. How many political speeches end with "God bless America"?

        "In God We Trust" had become a national symbol of America in an attempt to differentiate the country from the demon socialist and communist hoards trying to beat down the gates.

        •  It's the politics that matters (0+ / 0-)

          Religion is there as window dressing. And as a form of political manipulation.

          I suppose it's a good idea to define "religion."

          Per dictionary.com:

          1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
          2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
          3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
          4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
          5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
          As a practical matter, religions, since they are often aligned with nationalities, can be used for political purposes. But there's little, based on the above definition, to indicate that such an alignment is intrinsic to religion as such.

          One could argue, and I WOULD argue, that there should be NO National Prayer Breakfast and that political speeches ought not to end with "God Bless America."

  •  Link not correct (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rebel ga

    It goes to

    The Tax Wilderness, Untamed
  •  Would a lack of religion make people calmer ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, rebel ga, allergywoman

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:13:13 AM PST

  •  Don't blame religion. (6+ / 0-)

    Blame mankind's willful misinterpretations of the various religions.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:31:01 AM PST

    •  Uhh...right, because correctly interpreted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cpqemp, Fishtroller01

      all of the worlds various religions are correct. Or something.

      "It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." - Archie Bunker

      by Banach MacAmbrais on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:02:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some would say so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crider

        Followers of the Baha'i Faith for example.

        What does the Baha'i Faith teach?
        The Baha'i Faith teaches that there is one God, that all humanity is one family and that there is a fundamental unity underlying religion. Baha'u'llah affirms that this is the age in which world peace will be established. As anticipated in the sacred scriptures of the past, humanity will achieve its spiritual and social maturity and live as one family in a just, global society.

        What are some basic teachings of the Baha'i Faith?
        While retaining the basic spiritual teachings of all the Messengers of God, the Baha'i Faith brings new social principles relevant to the needs of a global society: the oneness of humanity, equality of men and women, the abolition of prejudice, the harmony of science and religion and the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth.

        http://www.bahai.us/...

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If it wasn't religion, it would be another excuse. (14+ / 0-)

    People are good at killing and hating one another, and have been throughout recorded history, irrespective of their level of religiosity.

    Look at Stalin's USSR, for example—an atheist nation that was still all too willing to engage in atrocities no less terrible than any religious nation or group.

    Religion is just one method of identity-formation that human beings use to justify heinous acts—alongside nationalism, tribalism, and ideological -isms. All identity-forming rhetorics have the potential to be beneficial or harmful.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:54:06 AM PST

    •  Or the Mongol hordes, if you want to avoid (4+ / 0-)

      contemporary factions. Populations fell by 25-33% as they passed through.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:58:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stalin spent 5 years in a Greek Orthodox seminary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, terremoto

      learning to become a priest. He claimed his father was a Greek Orthodox priest who beat him mercilessly.

      One could surmise that it was Stalin's upbringing that created his psycho-pathological propensities in how he ruled over the people of Russia.

      Would Stalin have been a better man had he had a non-religious upbringing?

      •  Not sure about the logic there. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, VirginiaJeff
        One could surmise that it was Stalin's upbringing that created his psycho-pathological propensities in how he ruled over the people of Russia.
        Stalin didn't act alone in the monstrosity of his acts; he had a literal army of people who were willing to take his psychopathological orders and make them a reality. Absent that, he couldn't have done much. So were all of the people who carried out his brutal orders also raised by Greek Orthodox priests who beat them mercilessly?

        And why is Stalin presumed to be a person without moral agency, merely a product of his upbringing who had no capacity or responsibility to choose to act morally? Though raised by a priest and allegedly beaten mercilessly, he was an atheist at least by the time he took power, if not long before; why, then, do you blame Christianity for the choices he made as an atheist?

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 01:40:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is understood that childhood upbringing can (0+ / 0-)

          affect how genetic personality disorders manifest themselves in adulthood.

          Stalin didn't act alone in the monstrosity of his acts; he had a literal army of people who were willing to take his psychopathological orders and make them a reality. Absent that, he couldn't have done much.
          Stalin conducted many purges that also removed those who had previously followed his orders such as Stanislav Redens. Stalin was paranoid and kept himself in power by periodically removing the people around him.
          So were all of the people who carried out his brutal orders also raised by Greek Orthodox priests who beat them mercilessly?
          There are many reasons for psycho-pathological behaviors. Stalin ran a cult of personality that attracted these kinds of people to his cause.
          And why is Stalin presumed to be a person without moral agency, merely a product of his upbringing who had no capacity or responsibility to choose to act morally?
          To act morally means to have the ability to be empathetic towards others. Psychopaths do not have this ability fully formed due to abnormalities in the brain structure. Upbringing can ameliorate or exacerbate this propensity.
          Though raised by a priest and allegedly beaten mercilessly, he was an atheist at least by the time he took power, if not long before; why, then, do you blame Christianity for the choices he made as an atheist?
          It was religion that helped to form his personality and character. It gave him a hatred for all religions rarely matched by other world leaders and he acted out on this.

          Stalin took major actions towards the lethal persecution of Judaism, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Catholics, the Latin Catholics, Islam and other religious organizations.

          •  You're demonstrating my point for me, I think. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mskitty, DaveinBremerton, Wee Mama
            Stalin conducted many purges that also removed those who had previously followed his orders such as Stanislav Redens. Stalin was paranoid and kept himself in power by periodically removing the people around him.
            I'm not sure how Stalin's own willingness to take out the people around him from time to time is necessarily relevant to my point, which was that Stalin wasn't acting alone—so to whatever extent his religious upbringing affected his choices, it doesn't offer a sufficient explanation for everything that happened in Stalin's USSR, since that was done by other people who were willing to carry out Stalin's orders.
            Stalin ran a cult of personality that attracted these kinds of people to his cause.
            And yet, it wasn't a religion, at least insofar as it didn't involve any kind of belief in the supernatural. Doesn't that actually bolster my initial point, which was that religion is just one of a number of identity-forming rhetorics that cause people to behave terribly toward one another?
            To act morally means to have the ability to be empathetic towards others. Psychopaths do not have this ability fully formed due to abnormalities in the brain structure. Upbringing can ameliorate or exacerbate this propensity.
            I don't think the feeling of empathy is a necessity for morality. If we agree that certain things (like murder, rape, etc.) are highly immoral, don't those acts remain immoral no matter how much empathy the person engaging in those acts does or does not have?
            It was religion that helped to form his personality and character. It gave him a hatred for all religions rarely matched by other world leaders and he acted out on this.
            So his hatred of all religion was the fault of religion? That sounds like victim-blaming to me. If Stalin's father had only not been so religious and if Stalin hadn't had a bad experience at seminary, Stalin might not have hated religion... so it's really those religious people's own fault that Stalin tried to wipe them out, because a few religious people had been assholes to Stalin once.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:06:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Considering the hundreds of thousands who have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff, mskitty

        spent years in Greek Orthodox seminaries, it would appear to be an underdetermining factor if relevant.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 02:47:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But 5 years of torment during that period (0+ / 0-)

          could affect someone genetically predisposed to psychopathology.

          Stalin certainly went after religious leaders with a vengeance when he had the power to do so. None of this extreme violence towards religion comes from Marx (religion is the opiate of the masses) as a requirement for a communist state. Keep in mind that the church was a very important element of the ruling class in Russia that was oppressing the people and one of the causes of the Russian revolution.

          USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–28)

          There were two main principal anti-religious campaigns that occurred in the 1920s, with one surrounding the campaign to seize church valuable and the other surrounding the renovationist schism in the Orthodox Church.

          This portion of the state's religious campaign came to an end in 1929, when Stalin began the implementation of a much harsher campaign that would take place in the following decade.

          USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–41)

          Many of those who had been arrested in the 1920s would continue to remain in prison throughout the 1930s and beyond.

          The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]

          In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.

          •  It might have an effect on someone predisposed to (0+ / 0-)

            it, but so might similar violence from any other source. I'm just pointing out that almost everyone else who passes through an Orthodox seminary seems to make it through. Pointing the finger at religion rather than at violence seems misguided to me, as there is violence both inside and outside religion.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:44:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  All I pointed out was the possible cause of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fishtroller01

              Stalin's hatred of religion - especially towards religious leaders.

              I could argue that if Stalin had no abuse from a religious connected source, the world may be a different place right now.

              The three Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, have been responsible for a tremendous amount of violence in their 4000 year history. Some of the world's worst atrocities have been committed by their followers.

              "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" -- Napoleon Bonaparte

              "Religious wars are basically people killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend" -- Napoleon Bonaparte

  •  I hate black-or-white thinking. (5+ / 0-)

    We all have peeves.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:56:25 AM PST

  •  hate is a strong term... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and a very unhealthy emotion.

    Having said that, in my opinion religions...all of them...have clearly been more harmful to humanity than helpful, in so many ways, in addition to the obvious ones whereby they use violence to try to force people to believe what they do.

    The worst problem with religion is the psychological impact it has on humans...discouraging them from changing their destructive behaviors by ensuring them that everything will be just fine as long as they believe in ...whatever...

  •  Not really useful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allergywoman, Crider

    to just 'blame religion'.

    Yes, a lot of terrible things have been, and are still being done in the name of religion.  Getting rid of religion might seem like a solution.  But it is important to remember than religion is a social institution that evolved just like, say, the justice system.  That is, in response to societal needs and pressures, over thousands of years.  These institutions can be changed, reformed, placed under control of a population through democratic means, etc.; but claiming that they are evil is simply an admission of a failure to regulate them, or of allowing them to remain under the control of a segment of the population that acts in ways contrary to the larger public good.

    190 milliseconds....

    by Kingsmeg on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 01:03:19 PM PST

  •  So, you have people from two branches of two (6+ / 0-)

    Abrahamic religions going at each other and that makes you hate all religion?

    I'd understand if you harbored a resentment for dogma, but hating all religions is kind of narrow-minded, to be honest.

    Nazi Germany, the Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia weren't driven by religion, but by dogma, and they committed some of the worst atrocities that this world has ever seen.

    Supremacist dogma is the problem, not religion.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 01:39:26 PM PST

  •  You might as well say "I hate all politics!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, VirginiaJeff

    given that both left and right-wing authoritarians in politics have committed atrocities.

  •  Religion does affect thinking (4+ / 0-)

    The suspension of rational thought that enables a person to believe someone walked on water, or fed five thousand with a few fishes. . .that suspension of rationality is a very, very dangerous thing, indeed. We see the results each and every day. You can observe it simply in the families of the pious (or supposedly pious!), which are often in deep disarray, with the family members creating all sorts of excuses for their bad behavior ("we're all SINNERS!). You can observe it in the crazy ramblings of a Pat Robertson or Michele Bachman.

    With a few lone exceptions, it's best to stay as far away from religion and religious individuals as possible. It's a malignant mindset.

    •  Let's see your evidence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, VirginiaJeff
      We see the results each and every day. You can observe it simply in the families of the pious (or supposedly pious!), which are often in deep disarray, with the family members creating all sorts of excuses for their bad behavior ("we're all SINNERS!).
      You are suggesting that there is a direct relationship between a family's religiosity and their dysfunctionality, such that when one removes all other factors from the equation, a family that is more religious is more likely to be dysfunctional.

      Given that you're extolling "rational" and evidence-based thought, can you present social scientific studies that demonstrate evidence of a direct statistical correlation between religiosity and family dysfunction, accounting for all other possible factors in family dysfunction?

      If you cannot present such studies or evidence, then are you not yourself engaging in the very kind of thinking that you dismiss as "irrational," by believing in a phenomenon for the existence of which you have no actual evidence?

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 02:17:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your argument shifts the burden of proof (0+ / 0-)
        can you present social scientific studies that demonstrate evidence of a direct statistical correlation between religiosity and family dysfunction, accounting for all other possible factors in family dysfunction?
        •  It doesn't shift the burden of proof at all. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VirginiaJeff, Wee Mama

          The person to whom I was replying was the one who made the claim that there is a direct correlation between religiosity and family dysfunction.

          The well-established norms of argumentation clearly hold that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim, not with their interlocutor.

          Therefore, it is the responsibility of the original commenter to show evidence that supports his or her claim.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:10:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are asking for an (0+ / 0-)
            accounting for all other possible factors in family dysfunction
            •  That phrase modifies "social scientific studies." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              ...as in, the studies should demonstrate a clear correlation between religiosity and family dysfunction, and that in doing so, those studies (and not the commenter) should account and adjust for all other possible factors.

              The reason they need to adjust for other factors is that the commenter is specifically suggesting a relationship between religiosity and family dysfunction, rather than between other factors that could contribute to family dysfunction such as poverty, trauma, education levels, etc.

              In other words, those studies should demonstrate that no matter how rich or poor, educated or uneducated, etc. a family is, they are more likely to be dysfunctional to the extent that they are religious.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:14:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You're very astute (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamesGG

        You're correct, I have no scientific proof. I can only speak from my own direct observations and an admittedly small sample, hardly scientific. I should have responded more carefully.

        Nevertheless, my observation is either true or untrue.

    •  Many don't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama
      believe someone walked on water, or fed five thousand with a few fishes
      Or at least not literally, as opposed to metaphor or allegory or parable.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:22:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The very worst abuses in history (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, VirginiaJeff

    have been committed by secular governments. Communists and Fascists have killed tens of millions in their quest for utopia.

    "The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler..." -Eric Hoffer

    by MajorMinor on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 02:14:09 PM PST

      •  That's some cherry picking, with an agenda (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        Hitler was conflicted about religion, especially the Catholic Church which he was raised in by his mother. He did recognize, however, that it could be useful to him in motivating and controlling people.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:30:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What agenda would that be? Please explain. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler..." -Eric Hoffer

          by MajorMinor on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:30:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  nobeliefs.com (0+ / 0-)

            Regarding religion they have a particular....slant.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:38:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hitler felt that he should be worshiped. (0+ / 0-)

        He persecuted those who worshiped a different "god".

        "The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler..." -Eric Hoffer

        by MajorMinor on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:35:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hitler was not religious. He rejected (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        Christianity and hated Judaism.  Some scholars think he was an atheist.  Others believe he was a deist (not exactly a hotbed of religious fanaticism).

        I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

        by VirginiaJeff on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:24:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hitler was a self-worshiping fool (0+ / 0-)

          who flirted with the Norse religion.

        •  He did not reject Christianity. (0+ / 0-)

          He claimed that he was defending it. Read Mein Kampf.

          And he was no atheist.... the belt buckles of all the Nazi troops said "Gott Mit Uns"... god with us.

          •  You are confusing propaganda with belief. (0+ / 0-)

            It is generally believed by historians that Hitler planned to eradicate Christianity in Germany.  (For some writings on this topic, you might check this article in the New York Times. You can also review material in the Rutger Journal of Law and Religion.  Rutger Journal of Law and Religion.  Marshall Dill, in his book Germany: A Modern History, states “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.” Eliot Barculo Wheaton is even more blunt in his book, The Nazi Revolution: Hitler "sought to eradicate Christianity in Germany -- root and branch."

            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

            by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 06:48:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Fascism has always been intimately entwined with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Banach MacAmbrais

      religion. Fascist's have used the dominant religion as a means to control by identifying themselves with it. An attack on the regime becomes an attack on the religion.

      As far as the "godless" Communists, I don't think we have a truly Communistic run country to look at. But, I can come up with many religions run as communes that ended poorly such as that run by Jim Jones.

      •  Fascists believed that the state was (0+ / 0-)

        to be worshiped. So in that sense I guess they were religious.

        "The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler..." -Eric Hoffer

        by MajorMinor on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:33:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't say worshipped. Obeyed would be a more (0+ / 0-)

          accurate term. But, most religions also don't call for worship as much as obedience to their tenets.

          Leaders of fascist states don't believe in the religion for the most part. Religion is simply a powerful tool for compliance so it is tolerated as long as it can be manipulated.

          Hitler was actively helped by the Catholic Church in gaining full political control over the state with the signing of the 1933 Concordat with Pope Pius XI

      •  Communism has been tried many times. And (0+ / 0-)

        has always ended in disaster.

        "The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler..." -Eric Hoffer

        by MajorMinor on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:36:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's not the religion that causes it (3+ / 0-)

    Humans are going to choose up sides and massacre each other from time to time. It's usually over money, land, and/or power. However, those don't go over as "good" reasons in some cases, so more "moral" justification must be found. It may be pride in country, or racial purity, or religion, or something else. Religion is merely a handy excuse some turn to in order to justify the actions they wanted to take anyway.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:04:14 PM PST

  •  Stalin's reign of terror was largely atheistic. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff, Wee Mama

    Starved millions of peasants who were deeply religious.

    Even today you have a largely agnostic, if not atheistic, EU imposing harsh austerity rules on Southern European countries.

    I'm not ignoring the many atrocities of religion. But religion has been around a long time, and so its adherents have had more opportunity to exploit the communities.

    To somehow think that ONLY religions are the cause is to be naive regarding human violence. If there were no religions, to you truly believe all violence would disappear?

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

    by JWK on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:05:13 PM PST

    •  Some reading for the Stalin/atheism crowd.. (0+ / 0-)
      •  The thesis is incorrect. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VirginiaJeff

        No where did I say atheism is or was the cause of these atrocities. However, they WERE perpetrated by atheists. That is undeniable. For you Stalin apologists, you should actually read Harvest of Sorrows and Stalin's genocide against the peasantry.

        Get back to me when you've grown up and disavowed your self-righteous atheists-can-do-no-evil bullshit.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

        by JWK on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 05:39:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fishtroller is just that: a troll. Other atheists (0+ / 0-)

          here, for the most part, are very respectful of the various beliefs of Kossacks.

          Unfortunately, Fishtroller has some insecurities that have turned him into the mirror image of an evangelical fundamentalist.  Ironic, isn't it?

          I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

          by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 07:16:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you realize how ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

            you sound? You just love those good little atheists who behave within YOUR approved box walls? Talk about insecurities, not to mention arrogance!

            •  So, in your extremist mindset, being respectful (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              toward others equates with being trapped in someone else's "approved box walls."

              Who else thinks like that?  Oh, yeah: insecure religious fundamentalists.

              I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

              by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:23:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It has been my observation that those (0+ / 0-)

                who continue to hound people like me with accusations of being a troll, or whatever else in terms of name calling they can come up with, are those who are least secure in their support for their religious institutions and/or their personal faith related beliefs.

                •  I'm not accusing you (0+ / 0-)

                  of anything. I'm stating a fact. You are, by definition, a troll.

                  This community is composed of people from all walks of life, and includes people across the spectrum of theistic and non-theistic points of view.  We have come together to cooperate for the purpose of furthering progressive political policies and to support Democratic candidates. You do contribute nothing toward that goal or toward community cohesion.  You are simply here to troll a part of the community whom you hate.

                  I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                  by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:50:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  By the way, have you met Wee Mama? (0+ / 0-)

                I think you would enjoy each others' company.

                •  You do know that Wee Mama (0+ / 0-)

                  is a veteran member of the Kos community who has contributed to its written guidelines for interaction, right?

                  I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                  by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 11:04:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, that decides the whole thing... (0+ / 0-)

                    and I bow to the hierarchy. I will accept that Wee Mama's opinions are more valid than mine.

                    By the way, do those guidelines include looking up someone's comment record and then criticizing the percentage of topics they comment on?  If I'm a troll, then there are cat/dog lover trolls, science trolls, environmental trolls, etc. etc.

                    It would never occur to me to look up your comment record and make a judgement on your "troll" status, although I do have a nagging suspicion that scolding atheists who don't fall into line with your so-called "respectful" category might be one of your favorite activities?  Just a hunch.  

                    Have a nice day. Please.

                    •  Try trolling cat/dog lover diaries (0+ / 0-)

                      or the science diaries.  You'll be knocked right off the website.

                      As for comment records, they are open for a reason.  Think about what that reason might be.

                      I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                      by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:22:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, since I have a science background (0+ / 0-)

                        and have been part of many of those conversations, I doubt I have a problem there. Guess you missed that.

                        I don't care if people want to view my comment history, argue with me or ignore me.  I do care when they pull little name calling power plays or have nasty side conversations within a thread about someone, since I think that flies right in the face of the purpose and goals of this site. In fact, I think it's fine if right wingers come on here and offer their views.  As long as there are no personal attacks, ALL ideas are fair game.  I give no special status to religious ones any more than political ones.

                        All I know is that I don't name call anyone. I don't call people trolls to try to stifle their opinions.  I don't look up their comment records if I don't like what they say. If I don't like what people say, I either ignore them or challenge them.  My favorite topic to comment on is religion, but it's not the only topic I comment on.  If you don't like my preferences well... you know....

                        I really dislike the little childish game of troll hunting. There is a lot of that on here, but particularly with certain religious facions that just can"t handle their ideas being questioned.

                        I assumed the purpose of having open comment records is to facilitate the open flow of ideas and information, and to protect the sponsors of the site, not to play big brother.  Are you telling me otherwise?

                        •  Yes, I am telling (0+ / 0-)

                          you otherwise.  It is open to everyone so members of the community get a better idea of your over all intentions in posting here.  In reviewing your comments, I can see that I am not the only one who has discerned your compulsion to antagonize religious Kossacks.

                          I am asking you, please, read the community guidelines that describe appropriate behavior versus behavior that tends to make this an unpleasant place for members to meet. Thanks.

                          I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                          by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 03:25:39 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It would help if religious Kossacks (0+ / 0-)

                            didn't get antagonized so easily.  And maybe they can also read the guidelines and discern that it is very antagonizing to read the plethora of pro-Pope Francis diaries and comments on Kos.  Those REALLY make the atmosphere of Kos unpleasant!

                            Are you done yet?  Thanks!

                          •  It would be entirely appropriate (0+ / 0-)

                            for you to make specific criticisms about the Pope's policies under an article about him.  Why would you think otherwise?

                            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                            by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:51:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why would I think otherwise? (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess you haven't researched the kind of troll name calling mud that gets slung at me and others who share my views on those diaries.  The pro-pope crowd has some of the nastiest players on Kos.

                          •  Oh and one more thing... (0+ / 0-)

                            Why aren't you scolding or investigating the comments of this diarist?  Isn't the title "I hate all religions" rather antagonizing for religious Kossacks?

                          •  I did offer feedback (0+ / 0-)

                            in the comments.  You missed it.  And if you bothered to look at the writer's history, you'd see they don't endlessly attack religious Kossacks.  They actually have other interests.

                            I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

                            by VirginiaJeff on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 04:57:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well so do I. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've commented on monarch butterflies because I raise them. I've commented on the topics of Israel, the NSA, Scott Walker, KY politics, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc.

                            And I don't attack religious Kossacks.  I criticize their reliigous ideas.  There is a difference.   For example, people don't like it when they claim that Jesus is a peace lover and I point out that he endorsed and threatened hell.  I had one Kossack tell me that I made that up. This person was so offended by my offering of something that is right there in the texts, he/she started in on the name calling and oh, you're such a troll etc. etc.

                            Bottom line.  If religious diaries or comments are made on here, and I have some criticism of those ideas or claims (non-evidenced) I will say something.  Why? Because religion is at the base of so much of the world's ills and issues and needs to be held to the same fire of scrutiny and skepticism as any other claims. Maybe more so.  If that makes people uncomfortable, so be it. I am not attacking them personally and I never tell someone they are an idiot for believing them. They can ignore me or argue with me.   But trying to drive me off with the name calling or the "you must be a sad person with a sad life" crap is not going to be effective at all. At least with me.

        •  I never said (0+ / 0-)

          "atheists can do no evil".  However, the old chestnuts about Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and atheism are nothing more than religious apologetics fall back myths.

  •  not to mention atheistic North Korea, China.... (3+ / 0-)

    and their atrocities.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

    by JWK on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:06:22 PM PST

  •  It's an evil hoax... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gsenski

    With so much information, debates, and arguments available, it's amazing we still believe at all.

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:27:04 PM PST

  •  What you really hate... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VirginiaJeff

    ...are religious extremists, for which you will probably get little argument here.

  •  You might as well as written that you hate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, Crider, Patate

    tribes.  Or nations.  Or families.

    Everyone wants to justify their particular hatred.  Let go of yours.

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 05:00:20 PM PST

  •  Religion..... (0+ / 0-)

    lost its most convincing argument for belief when it stopped burning non-believers at the stake.

    Religion is like a blind man, in a pitch black room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.....and finding it.

    by fauxrs on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 09:46:54 PM PST

  •  Important issue destroyed by oversimplistic (0+ / 0-)

    generalization and hyperbole. What a shame.

    "Aux ames bien nees, la valeur n'attend point le nombre des annees" Pierre Corneille.

    by Patate on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 09:50:58 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site