Duff wrote:Your confused collection of quotes is making no coherent sense whatsoever. Yes, I think religion can inspire people to acts of evil. Your say you believe people just use religion as an excuse, the implication being that without religion they would find a different excuse and still commit the evil acts (you've sctually said this in one of your posts on this thread iirc). You are giving religion a partial pass. I would say a passing knowledge of history or sociology shows that to be nonsense. If that was the case then secular societies would be as violent as religious ones and that is simply not the case. Not that many haven't used religion in just the way you say, the difference being that I also think that in pretty much all of those cases, without the religion (or in the C19 & C20 in particular, the ideology) those monsters would not have been able to perpetrate their crimes to anywhere near the same magnitude.
Not confused at all. Firstly the accusation was made that religion dictates/inspires/condones 'violence'. Then what we got were several quotes from one religious text (New Testament) that I pointed out were wildly open to interpretation - including the ones you use. And that this is where people who want to seek some sort of justification can do so by finding what they want to find.
I also argued that religion isn't the only cause for violence and have suggested that political motivation is more guilty than religious, just that as history has shown, religion can be used as a shroud or a way of justifying the political end that the 'leaders' seek.
Duff wrote:Which was about a point we haven't been arguing about, so I fail to see why you are bringing it up.
It was, you suggested it was missing from the points I was making - it wasn't.
Duff wrote:Once again, it is the opposite, at least in those case of "inspiration". In the case of this argument, the gun is the religious zealot who commits an act of violence inspired by his faith, the wielder of the weapon is the religion.You are blaming the weapon, whereas I am saying that at least some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the organisation/people/ideology that set him/her off.
You see it is here that you muddy the water. We were discussing religious scripture and how you believed it to inspire acts of violence. Now you say 'religion' again and refer to organisations etc. As I have pointed out, I believe that more often than not there is a stronger political motive behind these acts. But then it does appear that you agree with what I have been saying all along:
Duff wrote:Not all, not even most of the responsibility, but some.
I shall use your examples:
Duff wrote:from child abusing priests
So there aren't child abusing people outside of religion? I'll put money on the fact that for every priest there is ten fold of other such people who have also worked themselves into positions of 'trust' to take advantage of it, doctors, teachers, nurses, care workers (as much as it pains me to say it). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the shortcomings of the people at hand.
Duff wrote:immunisation denying mullahs
Often because those that are suffering the most through disease are weakened, they are unable to stand up to their overlords. Whilst their overlords have probably taken the immunisations themselves, and insured their families have it. Again, greed and political gain.
Duff wrote:scriptures and doctrine used to justify genocide or the subjugation of women
We have sort of been here a bit already so I'll answer the second bit. Is it the scriptures that explicitly state that women should be subjugated or is it the political powers that claim that to be the case?
Duff wrote:the banning of contraception in Africa
As a response to the stance of the Catholic church? Just have a look at that for a second. The Catholic church is probably the best example of religion bedding with politics. Sadly the only places in the world that appear to pay attention to some of the ancient rhetoric are the developing worlds who are still encouraged to 'fear' religion. It's true to say that it is a good example of how religion can be used to gain power, and it is wrong. But that is something decided politically by the Vatican, and is widely disputed by a great many Catholics.
Duff wrote:the suppression of free thought and scientific enquiry
Which I always find strange as in many instances, science as we know it, originated in religious facilities such as monasteries and temples. In many cultures it was the foundation of education, and continues to try and provide education around the world (again in some instances).
Duff wrote:that adds up to a huge weight of responsibility. You could argue that religion is the metaphorical gun when used as a justification, but then religion would be a metaphorical M60 and I'm in favour of gun control anyway.
I don't deny any of this, but was pointing out that people will use whatever leverage they have. If religion is armed with an M60, politics - especially those we have both mentioned, is armed with a nuke.
Duff wrote:Not prevent, but I certainly think there would be less ills in the world if humanity did shed itself of it.
And this is where we do disagree. The reality is that it is the extremes of both religion and politics (to which is more accountable is not straightforward to say) that cause the 'ills'. And it's the twats who push both to those extreme limits that are behind it all. To tar 'religion' and 'all' of those that follow a religion with the same brush could be considered quite an extreme point of view too - it's essentially what Hitler believed.
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:19 am
