Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master
Zan-beef
Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.794)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male |
Reply 16 of 114 (Originally posted on: 03-10-05 04:10:04 PM)
Edit Post
| Edit History
| Send PM
| Change Title
| Reply w/Quote
| Report Post
| Ignore
| Show All Posts
I find it difficult to read this thread coherently.
Quote:
1) The Crusades - Christians killing muslems
Religion may have proved to be one of the reasons that the Crusades began, but it is more than just Christians killing Muslims. The Crusades purpose was foremost to gain back the Levant, and to inhibit the spread of the middle-eastern countries. It was an attempted show of chivalry that the Crusades were of great importance to the medieval people.
Quote:
2) The Roman era - Romans killing christians
How so? The Romans treated Christians just like any other radical group in the empire. The Romans could not care for whether their Gods declared that they should kill Christians (which they never did). If you were against the purpose of the empire, you were most likely going to be oppressed.
After the Christians took over, however, inhibitions occured on the grounds that certain Roman events were 'unchristian.' Certainly there were groups which were concerned, such as the radical cults of the time, but most wars afterwards were fought for power, even if under the name of religion.
Quote:
3) Twin towers - Jahid(holy war)
More like a war for their own 'freedom.' It has been claimed that it was a holy war, that it was a fight against the infidels, but even if that is a reason, it's not the highest on Al-Qaeda's priority list. Foremost it is a rebellion against prior American oppression in the middle-east.
Quote:
4) Veitnam - Because they were communists
Most communist nations considered their state secular. While you may get an oddball religious leader, as you can in America, Vietnam was fought on the principle of inhibiting Communist growth in an era when Communism was viewed as an evil system. While there is the potential that Communism could be considered a 'faith' by some, just as Democracy is, in Vietnam's case, North Vietnam was willing to become, more or less, democratically friendly to America. It was only after the failed Imperialistic gains by France, and the fears of Communism that both sides forfeited that idea.
Communism, while it can strongly affect the personal opinion of a person, is just as much of a religion as democracy and fascism are. Some people would die for it, most people don't really give a damn.
Quote:
5) The Inquisition - Catholics killing others?
The Inquisition was never one-sided. It is true that Catholic Jesuits feared the rise of a number of factions, but it's folly could be compared to the numerous times Protestant religions have attempted to irradicate Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity.
Quote:
6) The 1600's - Catholics persecuting puritans, etc. Which in turn led them to come to the United States and massacre the native indians.
First, it wasn't the Catholics who persecuted the Puritans. If anything, it was the Anglican church who deemed them inappropriate for England. Both groups publically showed their religion, and in due course it was the radical group, the Puritans, which looked for a paradise elsewhere. At first, they travelled to The Netherlands, however, they could not find what they desired as a 'kingdom of God' there.
Once they did travel to the new world, they established their own de facto system. While it was more focused on their religious beliefs, most wars against the native cultures at the time were not due strictly to religion. Religion was certainly a reason, but it was moreso fear which led to both sides committing atrocities against one another. It is true, as well, that some religious cultures got along well with the native cultures. An example is Catholic New France which had settlers not only befriend some natives, but also live among them and eventually share a family with.
Quote:
7) The whole thing between Israel & Palestine - They are fighing over their holy temple/city or something. This has been going on for a long time.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is moreso a war fought among the hardcore faithful, as well as policies which have inadvertently failed to work in the first place. It has become a focus between radical Jewish and Muslim groups these days as a means to capture a piece of land which has been a focus of atleast three main sects of religion; however, the origins remain slightly less religious in cause. Initially, the modern conflict began due to bad promises on the part of Great Britain after World War I. Without a clear establishment of a self-governed society, the governments set up in that part of the middle-east were unstable. The Israelis who had began to migrate often were the Jewish people who were seeking religious fortitude among their promised land. After World War II, there was a common belief among some Jewish groups that religious freedom for them would come in the promised land. At first, it seemed the Palestinians did not mind the Jewish groups. Initially, both people shared the same streets, lived among eachother. However, the rise in Israeli population displaced the Palestinian people to go further east, south or north. Contrary to what some people have said, the Palestinians had been living in Palestine for over 1000 years. Some even had land which dated back that far.
It is moreso a fight over land than religion. The Palestinians want to establish land, and some radical groups will do anything to get it back. The Israelis want to expand, to secure their establishment. The radical groups who commit to doing so will do anything to keep what land they have secure for both establishment and expansion.
Quote:
8) Catholic priests raping little boys - Where in the bible(which is still what their religion is based on right?) does it say that having sex with females is a bad thing? On the contrary..."God slaughtered the ppl in soddom and gomora for being homosexual"
First, God never 'slaughtered' the people in Sodom or Gomorrah for being strictly homosexual. If anything, the Old Testament states that Sodom and Gomorrah were brandished as elicit, sinful places where sexual promiscuity was one of the reasons. Homosexuality does not equal sexual promiscuity.
Secondly, it's not only Catholic Priests which have raped little boys. Other priests from other groups, such as the more strict Protestant groups, have commited rape with boys. The main cause would seem to be the lack of being able to have sexual relations in the first place. In a time when chastity is not considered a social-norm, the pressure to remain without sex could lead to some people being gravely effected by it. While it's more common for male priests to have sexual relations with boys, there have been cases where females of the order, or girls have been involved. I wouldn't find it unlikely if there are some priests who have raped older women and older men. Yet, keep in mind that most cases of the raping of young boys occurs outside the church, though the Church is certainly not freed of it.
The problem is not a religious issue. The little boys don't often tend to be non-religious at the time that they are raped. If anything, the problem is due to the system to which the religious society is ordained, not the religion itself.
Quote:
I'm sure there are alot more, I just don't have the time to think of them right now.
If you looked more deeply in the history of the world, you will realize that most wars were fought over power. Even the ones who you claimed above have been fought over power. Who has more power over another group has always been the prime reason behind wars and conflicts. Religion certainly has been one of the reasons that some conflicts have been commited, but those who are commiting to it usually cite religion as the cause to alleviate the fact that it's over an entirely different issue.
Quote:
Besides the fact that religion causes major/international problems, religions like christianity have been so corrupted, altered and separated into different groups that it causes problems on a more family/individual bases. Whats worse is that people generaly are expected to believe in some kind of religion. For example: I have to see the school(high school) Psychiatrist/Psychologist because im looked on as "abnormal" because I wrote a paper saying "Religion is a fairy tale for adults who are scared of dying".
Most likely because you live in a society which may view religion as important. While I agree that Christianity is not nearly close to what it was originally ordained to be, the issues with religion now are not nearly as bad as they were a few decades ago. There has been some improvement, it's just unfortunate that as religions seek reform, more and more radical groups are created. It is these radical groups, as much of a minority as they are, which seem to have such a loud voice in modern society.
Perhaps, if you are truthful about the psychiatrist issue, is that some view you as 'abnormal,' not necessary because of your religious stance, but because of the strength you exhibit with it. To be such a strong opposer to religion in general is a radical viewpoint. Most atheists, agnostics and those who are religious tend to go no further in their religious aptitudes then a debate on religious issues. Most people seek to keep their faith private, or do not seek to convert people through awareness or cohersion. Your paper does not conform to that, thus by some you would most likely be ordained 'abnormal.' Abnormality is not entirely a horrible thing, either. Furthermore, in my own opinion it's not enough to see a psychiatrist over, but stranger things have happened in the educational systems of the world.
Quote:
Our constitution(separation of religion and state? something like that) is violated on a daily basis by authority figures who make decisions supporting christian beliefs, based on the fact that they will get voted in again because the majority are christians.
I'm not American; however, you shouldn't take your Constitution as being absolute. Despite the legality of it, your Constitution is a guideline. It is a guideline which people follow, but it's no more a guideline than this forum's 'Terms of Service.' People follow it, but it can be interpreted many ways.
Secondly, the leaders of the US, while they have grand support among the majority of fundamentalist Christians, even some non-fundamentalist Americans, does not simply derive itself on making decisions because of Christian beliefs. The American government, while it is supposed to be secular, is seeking power. To be powerful, they must retain what the public feel, even if it is only over half of what some of the public feels. As for their attempts to get voted in again, there is no reason to focus on Christian beliefs because of that. The current administration can not be voted in again. However, as long as the public remains in support of the way the current administration runs, the administration will not change to gain public support as it seemed to do shortly after September 11th.
Quote:
And what about making GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL???? I'll tell you right now that I'm not gay, but how the fuck can they do that? I wanna know how the fuck they can get away with such a MAJOR violation of the constitution.
I don't quite understand, do you support Gay Marriage or not? Gay Marriage is a controversial term, not necessarily due to the popularly held opinion that marriage = religion, but because certain religious groups fear for their own seperation from state. The seperation of state and religion works both ways. The state is not supposed to be influenced by religion, and the religions are not told what to do. While some religious groups embrace Gay Marriage, certain groups do not want to be told to do so. It is certainly not as black and white as that, however. Some groups are strongly opposed to anything gay, thus the prospects of gay people marrying concerns them. Other people see Gay Marriage as offensive to their own personal beliefs, and are thus strongly against it.
I do not fully understand your stance as to how Gay Marriage is illegal. Due to the lack of any strong laws either way, certain states can deem it illegal. To be constitutionally illegal, it would have to go through a complex system which would take years. To be federally illegal, it may not take very long, but it can be vetoed by the states.
In Canada, while our constitution is not absolute, as it states so, Gay Marriage relies mostly on the provinces' choice. The Federal government, although it intends to create a federal law for or against it, is not constitutional, and can be overruled eventually - Even if certain strongly opposed provinces end up in government.
What Gay Marriage mostly relies upon are the people of the nation. You elect your leaders, You elect the administration, You sometimes get to vote in referendums. I certainly don't agree with the way the current American administration runs, but as much as some Americans may hate it, it's American people who put it there.
Quote:
I also want to know how the United States of America can be a major world power while openly admiting to(and even being proud of) having an imaginary friend(God).
The American government is technically secular, despite the references to God in its society. Most people in American society tend to be Christian, so it's not unlikely the God is referenced once and a while. If anything, as an American your concern should be on those people who want to enforce religion, not to publically show it.
Quote:
Religion for moral values? This is for parents who don't want to spend the time to teach their children properly because they are irresponsible themselves and/or are out till 4 in the morning getting wasted.
Sometimes religious moral values work. Sometimes they don't. If a parent wants to use religious moral values, I'm not against it - even publically - as long as what they teach does not conflict with most other people in society.
Quote:
The point is that religion causes more problems than it solves. If their were no such thing as religion a lot of major conflicts would not have happened. Whether religion was the direct cause or not for them, it added to the problem. And yes, I realize communism isin't a religion, however, it does oppose religion therefore it conflicts with it.
Personally, I'm not a supporter of a religion outside Agnosticism, if you even consider that a religion; however, religion has its positives. While to some the cons outweight the pros, a world without religion is unimaginable in today's standards. There has never been, atleast in historical standards, a time when there haven't been some people who have been religious. A world without religion is a pipedream, if anything. A world where religion can coincide and work with the state and the people is something which society can strive for in the long term.
Secondly, Communism did conflict with some religion is some Communist states, however, it was not a main priority. The people who were against Communism ranged from those who were religious and those who weren't. Most who were for Communism didn't observe religion as being a focus of it. On the contrary, if you could have picked any other political system which was in conflict with religion, or worked with religion, Communism is one of the systems which does not help support your claim. Authoritarianism, Democracy, Theocracy, Anarchy are systems which can heavily involve themselves in religious affairs. Communism, while it does involve itself, does so minimally.
Quote:
I just think it's sickening to see so many people worshiping another man like a god just because he has the title of 'Pope' or whatever.
Most Catholics don't, or no longer view the Pope in extreme high esteem. The Pope is seen as a messenger of God. He is observed as the person to whom Catholics can set an example by. Not all Catholics agree with the Pope, certainly not even all factions of the Church agree with the Pope; however, the Pope helps give his religion strength. It is with the assistance of the Church and the Pope that Catholicism could survive as it does. Likewise, it is with Catholics, that the Church and the Pope can survive.
I do not agree with the Pope. I'm certainly not Catholic, but as long as his views do not effect my views, I see him as I see any other leader. I very well may like him, as much as I may like any leader, but I don't see him as a God, and certainly not as a friend or a neighbor.
Quote:
I'm not saying that if you get rid of religion that would solve all the worlds problems, I'm just saying it's a start. Because it does contribute to alot of problems. But most people don't want to admit it because they like religion. It gives them a reason to live, clears their consience(eg: going to church), and removes alot of the uncertainty of death.
As I stated before, a world without religion is unlikely. As well, while religion has its negatives, it also has its positives. Certain people, like yourself, consider the negatives as outweighting the positives, but I have yet to come to any point in your argument which I have not been able to contradict with. If your own argument can be contradicted, as well as those people who see religion as being positive, how much weight does it hold now?
Quote:
Look at all of the major world leaders/dictators for a second. They all knew that if they were to create a strong nation to eventially take over the world, they would have to become much more united. Therefore they noticed religion was a threat to this and banned it.
Hitler bannished religion and made Germans worship him. It worked. Germany was immediately united and strengthened. Communism had the same idea. Unfortunately there was not enough technology to cure Hitler of his disease and it rushed him into making mistakes.
Yet, the dictator you referenced failed. The governments which have forfeited religion have, for the most part, failed to survive a hundred years. Even your examples seem flawed. Hitler never bannished Religion, he suppressed it. The people of Germany were welcome to go to their churches. Even the Jewish people, atleast the ones who lived outside the concentration camps, were able to establish their own temples. Heck, even the ones in concentration camps held religious services occasionally - even if being caught would encourage suppression by the Nazis.
Hitler also wasn't worshipped. His beliefs were 'worshipped.' German people saw Hitler as the figurehead of a strong Germany. Nationalism is what drove the German people to view the National Socialists as the forebearers of German freedom. It was not difficult to do so, as the government before the Nazis was new, unestablished, and controversial among the German people; afterall, the German people were used to having an authoritarian society prior to the establishment of the Weimar Republic.
Likewise, Mussolini, despite his comedic nature, embraced religion as the people of Italy were religious. Communism embraced the idea of nationalism, of being a proud Russian, but it also never banished religion. Religion was suppressed, even at times embraced as a means to gain support. Even the Jewish people were given the invitation of the Soviets to populate Eastern Siberia, and some Jewish people actually took that chance. Religion, even under those societies, was never fully eradicated.
Likewise, your reference to Hitler having Parkinson's Disease as a means to why he failed is not strong. Hitler, prior to the outbreak of the disease, was not a strong military leader. He failed many times before, he could have made more logical military choices, and eventually he failed due to it. Not due to his parkinsons, which only began to actively show in his lifestyle in the last few years of his life.
Quote:
I think it's interesting that for the poll there are 4 separate ways you can say you agree with the originator of the thread, and only one option to disagree with him.
The originator is biased, it's not likely that he/she would create a poll in support of his/her opposite viewpoints.
I saw a pornstar
that looked just like you;
although he was legal
his name apparently was Robert.
What's the odds?
This reply was last edited on 03-10-05 04:31:25 PM by Sunn O))).
|
