It is time in this world for SOMEBODY to be the voice of reason, and get everyone to the table, and settle this horseshit once and for all....
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."[/QUOTE]
I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.
If you are waiting for someone like Falwell to actually say the word "slaughter" in relation to a group of people...you'll be waiting a long time. He's not that stupid. But
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."[/QUOTE]
I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.
If you are waiting for someone like Falwell to actually say the word "slaughter" in relation to a group of people...you'll be waiting a long time. He's not that stupid. But
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.[/QUOTE]
The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few things that have had as great a bearing.
My point with
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.[/QUOTE]
The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few things that have had as great a bearing.
My point with
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.[/QUOTE]
The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few things
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.[/QUOTE]
The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few things
We appear to be running circles around the same issue here, MusicMan...and the funny thing is that I think we have the same goals and POV...just on opposite sides.
Everything you've said has merit. I'm just cautioning against thinking that everything religious is good, because it's done a vast amount of harm.
Everything that I've said has merit. You're just cautioning against thinking that everything secular is good, because it's also done a vast amount of harm.
Same goals here, really. Both of us are just trying to avoid over-generalizations about religion, whether good or bad. The truth is we'll never know the answers to these questions, because over the long term, pound for pound, religion has done just as much good as secularism....and vice versa.
At least we've demonstrated our ability to think about volitile issues without getting nasty and resorting to mud-slinging (a la politics). There need to be more people like us in the world. :-)
Everything you've said has merit. I'm just cautioning against thinking that everything religious is good, because it's done a vast amount of harm.
Everything that I've said has merit. You're just cautioning against thinking that everything secular is good, because it's also done a vast amount of harm.
Same goals here, really. Both of us are just trying to avoid over-generalizations about religion, whether good or bad. The truth is we'll never know the answers to these questions, because over the long term, pound for pound, religion has done just as much good as secularism....and vice versa.
At least we've demonstrated our ability to think about volitile issues without getting nasty and resorting to mud-slinging (a la politics). There need to be more people like us in the world. :-)
Good point, let me summarize my point:
Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities.
I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization.
Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities.
I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir Archie Leach wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it.
Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends.
It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.
[/QUOTE]
The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged.
Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends.
It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.
[/QUOTE]
The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir Archie Leach wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it.
Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends.
It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.
[/QUOTE]
The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged.[/QUOTE]
If this was a hockey discussion, I'd like to point out that my #1 left-winger would have to be Brendan Shanahan.
Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends.
It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.
[/QUOTE]
The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged.[/QUOTE]
If this was a hockey discussion, I'd like to point out that my #1 left-winger would have to be Brendan Shanahan.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Good point, let me summarize my point:
Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities.
I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point, and I'm in agreement with you here, for the most part. I think we just misundestood eachother as defending religion always or bashing it always.
Definately you can't judge anything based on one quality alone, I'm in complete agreement with you there. You need more pieces of the puzzle. However, it's always been my experience that there are certain puzzle pieces that give a pretty good idea about where other puzzle pieces are going to look like, and where they will go.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course, which is why I took offence to the question of "Why is it always Muslim extremists who do this?",because that's got the implied accusation that all Muslims are evil or that Islam is an evil religion. I was just attempting to point out that it might look that way now (due to various factors) but that's not the case and won't be the case forever. Outsiders thought the same thing about Catholocism during the Crusades when they were slaughtering innocents in the Holy Land, so no one should rush to judgement on anything like that.
Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities.
I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point, and I'm in agreement with you here, for the most part. I think we just misundestood eachother as defending religion always or bashing it always.
Definately you can't judge anything based on one quality alone, I'm in complete agreement with you there. You need more pieces of the puzzle. However, it's always been my experience that there are certain puzzle pieces that give a pretty good idea about where other puzzle pieces are going to look like, and where they will go.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course, which is why I took offence to the question of "Why is it always Muslim extremists who do this?",because that's got the implied accusation that all Muslims are evil or that Islam is an evil religion. I was just attempting to point out that it might look that way now (due to various factors) but that's not the case and won't be the case forever. Outsiders thought the same thing about Catholocism during the Crusades when they were slaughtering innocents in the Holy Land, so no one should rush to judgement on anything like that.
It's nice to see a debate without all the name calling - carry on.......
Thanks Bob the Shrek....
There are people in the world who are civilized, it just doesn't seem like it come election time. :-)
There are people in the world who are civilized, it just doesn't seem like it come election time. :-)
lesson learned: never ever genralize a race/religion/ ethnic group for one of their own's actions. :)
another lesson learned: it's not the person you're supposed to hate. it's the action the person does. :)
lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)
another lesson learned: it's not the person you're supposed to hate. it's the action the person does. :)
lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance. [/QUOTE]
It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do.
IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world.[/QUOTE]
What some people seem to have been ignoring here is that there are still a lot of people who do good deeds in the name of religion.
Sure, there are tons of religious zealots who do nothing but spread hatred against anyone who doesn't share their same views.
I can't deny the fact that religion has been used as a tool of fear and power, but why only see the ugly side of religion?
What about all the charity organizations and people who based on their faith believe on helping others?
It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do.
IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world.[/QUOTE]
What some people seem to have been ignoring here is that there are still a lot of people who do good deeds in the name of religion.
Sure, there are tons of religious zealots who do nothing but spread hatred against anyone who doesn't share their same views.
I can't deny the fact that religion has been used as a tool of fear and power, but why only see the ugly side of religion?
What about all the charity organizations and people who based on their faith believe on helping others?
I'm afraid I'm in way over my head here. You guys will have to continue without me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)[/QUOTE]
Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence!
Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence!