Religion is Child Abuse

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, religion often drives the atrocities, but those who seek power in the name of religion are using religion as a tool to achieve it.

The key word there is "using." They are using religion. That doesn't mean religion is responsible. Like I said, the situations you mentioned involved people who wanted power, and they "used" whatever means they thought would yield them that power.

But in regards to comminting an act in "the name of...": If I committed murder in your name, would that make you responsible for the murder? Would that mean the world would have been better off without you?

Yes, it's my opinion that most corporations are simply more upfront about their motivations.

Nice play on words. It's not only your opinion that corporations are more upfront about their motivations, the motivations you attribute to religion are also no more than your opinion.

Its members invented the Catholic sect of the Christian religion.

Religion was around long before the Vatican was and a "sect" is not synonymous with "religion."

I didn't say it was representative of all religion. I used it as an example, but it is one of many.

In order to use it as a relevent example of religion, it would have to represent all religion-- since that's what the topic is.

Tax returns are unavailable because their power and influence has been so successfully utilized, they don't have to pay taxes. Financial documentation is hard to find because they feel it's necessary to operate a very private organization, but it's common knowledge they hold tremendous assets.

I assume you're referring to churches here. Fact is, not every church holds "tremendous assets." Most don't. Most ministers don't go into the ministry because they make six figure incomes. Most missionaries don't go into it for the money. But bottom line-- they don't have to pay taxes because they are non-profit organizations.

Trying to divert from answering the question by making me do a quick google search?

I'm not trying to divert from anything. It's pointless for me to answer a question regarding religion when the question isn't relevent to "religion."

Okay, answer it now before trying to call me a fundamentalist again.

"Similarly, the Aztec religion also had priests called chachalmecas. One main job of the chachalmecas was to offer human sacrifices to the gods."

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/co...tec31011208.htm

The Aztec religion wasn't representative of "religion." It most definitely is not synonymous with religion. Your question, therefore, isn't relevant. Your statements have not been in regards to the Aztec religion in this thread, but religion. If you want to discuss ancient rituals and specifics, that's a whole different topic.

Edited February 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, religion often drives the atrocities, but those who seek power in the name of religion are using religion as a tool to achieve it.

Yes, it's my opinion that most corporations are simply more upfront about their motivations.

Its members invented the Catholic sect of the Christian religion.

I didn't say it was representative of all religion. I used it as an example, but it is one of many.

Tax returns are unavailable because their power and influence has been so successfully utilized, they don't have to pay taxes. Financial documentation is hard to find because they feel it's necessary to operate a very private organization, but it's common knowledge they hold tremendous assets.

Trying to divert from answering the question by making me do a quick google search?

Okay, answer it now before trying to call me a fundamentalist again.

"Similarly, the Aztec religion also had priests called chachalmecas. One main job of the chachalmecas was to offer human sacrifices to the gods."

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/co...tec31011208.htm

The last decent and humanly intelligent Pope - Pope John Paul - and yes he was the last - Ratsinger - the German patriot is less than his oringal name sake - Poor John Paul in ill health knew and realized one thing and was hated for it by the vatican high priests or should I say lawyers - the former Pope knew and died in a desperate angish at the realization that the Vatican was the anti-christ practicing anti-christism...as far as the other religions - show me the benefits of Hinduism - or Taoism or Budism after a thousand years? Look at India - those muli-armed gods are utter failures.

[BubberMiley]

The Aztec religion wasn't representative of "religion." It most definitely is not synonymous with religion. Your question, therefore, isn't relevant. Your statements have not been in regards to the Aztec religion in this thread, but religion. If you want to discuss ancient rituals and specifics, that's a whole different topic.

No, it's the same topic. You just don't want to answer the question because you don't want to expose your fundamentalist intolerance of the Aztec people's religious beliefs. You feel your opinion about virgin sacrifice is fact. Prove that the aztecs were wrong in sacrificing virgins for the creator and that the creator didn't want them to do so.

Or perhaps the burden of proof should be placed on those whose "faith" tells them to abuse children (by sacrifice or by more subtle methods), rather than the other way around.

[Oleg Bach]

No, it's the same topic. You just don't want to answer the question because you don't want to expose your fundamentalist intolerance of the Aztec people's religious beliefs. You feel your opinion about virgin sacrifice is fact. Prove that the aztecs were wrong in sacrificing virgins for the creator and that the creator didn't want them to do so.

Or perhaps the burden of proof should be placed on those whose "faith" tells them to abuse children (by sacrifice or by more subtle methods), rather than the other way around.

Hey - human sacrafice is still going on to give the top dogs a sense of relevance and importance - that their lives are meaningful and valuable - look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't tell me that the high priests don't get a kick out of ending the lives of beautiful youth...and I will not get into the occultish practice of power stealing from young males by Catholic priests- a dark and secret unwritten policy of soul sucking.. one thing I know for sure is that there is a God and he or it is not pleased with religion.

[Guest American Woman]

No, it's the same topic. You just don't want to answer the question because you don't want to expose your fundamentalist intolerance of the Aztec people's religious beliefs. You feel your opinion about virgin sacrifice is fact. Prove that the aztecs were wrong in sacrificing virgins for the creator and that the creator didn't want them to do so.

Or perhaps the burden of proof should be placed on those whose "faith" tells them to abuse children (by sacrifice or by more subtle methods), rather than the other way around.

Well, we were having a rather decent discussion until this nonsense entered into it. I don't want to answer the question because it's not in regards to "religion." It's in regards to a very specific ancient religion. It's also got nothing to do with today. People evolve in all ways, religion included. Societies used to punish people without trials. They used to put people in stocks. Canada used to have the death penalty. To disagree with all that doesn't mean " justice and punishment for breaking the law" is a bad thing. Talking specifics is entirely different than talking about justice. Same applies to religion. You didn't say you disagree with specifics and that the world would be better off without said specifics. You said religion.

It is most definitely a different topic to discuss and disagree with specific rituals/aspects of specific religions, going back in history to dredge them up, than it is to discuss religion; to claim to know the answers about religion.

Or maybe when someone says they are religious you think they believe in sacrifices to the gods.

Edited February 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Well, we were having a rather decent discussion until this nonsense entered into it. I don't want to answer the question because it's not in regards to "religion." It's in regards to a very specific ancient religion. It's also got nothing to do with today. People evolve in all ways, religion included. Societies used to punish people without trials. They used to put people in stocks. Canada used to have the death penalty. To disagree with all that doesn't mean " justice and punishment for breaking the law" is a bad thing. Talking specifics is entirely different than talking about justice. Same applies to religion. You didn't say you disagree with specifics and that the world would be better off without said specifics. You said religion.

It is most definitely a different topic to discuss and disagree with specific rituals/aspects of specific religions, going back in history to dredge them up, than it is to discuss religion; to claim to know the answers about religion.

Or maybe when someone says they are religious you think they believe in sacrifices to the gods.

I like goodness and the idea of God - so argue all you want - I am a simpleton and have nothing to contribute to this little scuffle.

[BubberMiley]

Or maybe when someone says they are religious you think they believe in sacrifices to the gods.

I believe that all religion requires some degree of human manipulation and abuse to succeed, so the aztec example, while extreme, is just an indication of the power of religion when left unchecked and unquestioned. I used this example, however, primarily to show how your "fundamentalist" argument could be applied to anyone, including yourself.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe that all religion requires some degree of human manipulation and abuse to succeed, so the aztec example, while extreme, is just an indication of the power of religion when left unchecked and unquestioned. I used this example, however, primarily to show how your "fundamentalist" argument could be applied to anyone, including yourself.

My "fundamentalist" argument applies to religion in general; not specifics. The discussion in this thread has been religion in general, not specifics. As I pointed out, all of your comments have been in regards to religion, not specific religions nor specific beliefs, nor ancient history. Furthermore, I have never called anyone a fundamentalist for disagreeing with a specific. It's when one applies their beliefs to the whole, thinking they have the answers to religion, that one falls into that catagory. And I believe that has been quite clear. Furthermore, your example is against the law so it involves more than a specific religious belief, and the law supercedes any religion. I would think that would be a given rather than a question of fundamentalism.

As to what you believe-- again, that's your opinion and once more, it's along the lines of the fundamentalist thinking to apply your admittedly "extreme" example to "all religion." Furthermore, questioning something is completely different from claiming to "know" the answers regarding religion. I've never so much as insinuated "questioning" religion is in the line of being a fundamentalist. In fact, I've said the exact opposite.

Furthermore, anything that's left "unchecked and unquestioned" is a bad thing, not just religion. The same can be said for laws, democracies, justice systems, etc. but that doesn't make laws, democracies, and justice systems negatives.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

I believe that all religion requires some degree of human manipulation and abuse to succeed, so the aztec example, while extreme, is just an indication of the power of religion when left unchecked and unquestioned. I used this example, however, primarily to show how your "fundamentalist" argument could be applied to anyone, including yourself.

Central and South American ancient religions share the same worship of red. Blood - Christian perversity is also into the blood of Christ thing..so ulimately it seems that human sacrafice is what it is all about..to kill a human being and to bleed them - and somehow suck up the life force and call it religion - it's disgraceful ! _ What is very interesting concerning Roman Christianit is the Italian and Scillian Mafia - there is a right of passage that goes back to the time of the killing of Christ and the robbing of his power....I heard this from a grandson of a potential mafia head...He told me that they wanted his grandfather to be head of the Mafia..but he had to do one thing - kill a man.

You would assme that he had to go out and off the most brutal and scarey gangster..not so..He was to seek out a man that was innocent and good...a person of purity and justice - then kill him! Anyway he refused to follow though with the ritual..but it made me think that the killing of Jesus by the Romans - served one purpose - to hyjack his intelligence and to suck up his power and use it for evil means. Point in question is - religion and human sacrafice is crazy - you do not absorb the power of children (vatican sodomy) or the power of a good man - this is dellusion!

[BubberMiley]

My "fundamentalist" argument applies to religion in general; not specifics. The discussion in this thread has been religion in general, not specifics. As I pointed out, all of your comments have been in regards to religion, not specific religions nor specific beliefs, nor ancient history. Furthermore, I have never called anyone a fundamentalist for disagreeing with a specific. It's when one applies their beliefs to the whole, thinking they have the answers to religion, that one falls into that catagory.

Religion is an aggregation of specific beliefs and rituals, some of which are more violent and abusive than others. Whether the abuse is claiming that only one path will lead you to heaven or claiming that Allah wants you to martyr yourself, religion fundamentally relies on deception, and even self-deception (i.e., a "faith" that reason and rational analysis must be suspended), in order to function. I spoke of religion as a whole because some of the actions I consider abusive are common to all religions. But whether one speaks in specifics or generalities, people are still allowed to consider their own opinions to be the truth without being "fundamentalists." I'm not saying no one can disagree with me or anything.

Now, whether or not the perpetrators of this abuse are aware of the effects of their actions and are deliberately doing wrong is another story. I believe most such abusers likely feel they are doing right. But just like parents slapping their kids, that doesn't make their actions any less harmful.

Edited February 24, 2008 by BubberMiley

[jbg]

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting chapter in God Is Not Great about how all religion, no matter what form, is child abuse. This is not just because of the fact that, with the decline in organized religion's ability to curb all scrutiny, religious leaders' traditional practice of physically and sexually abusing children has come to light. It is also because instilling in children the belief that there will be eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard (e.g.., thou shalt not covet) is equally abusive.

Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

My religion teaches differently. As my Rabbi said this past Yom Kippur (I'd put this in my own words but couldn't improve on this Rabbi's):

The real problem with these fundamentalist atheists is that they leave us two choices, black or white. Accept religion as literal truth or accept atheism and secularism. But as comedian Jerry Seinfeld taught, there is a middle ground. “The key to eating a black and white cookie, he said, “is to get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate.” Jerry was right. He was thinking like a Jew. Judaism calls for a derch shlishi, a third way and it is the possibility of that third way between literalism and atheism

*************

And here is something that atheist fundamentalists have not realized. In their drive to un-explain everything they forgot a key ingredient to religion. They forgot that the very heart of Jewish tradition is the notion that there is holiness and awe and mystery in the world and that we are responsible for having such holiness realized. Human beings, marked as we are by frailty and finitude, are nevertheless imbued with such dignity by God that God charges us to contribute to the repair of the world. This means that we begin with seeing every other human as made in the image of God. It isn’t God first and people second or vice versa. Instead it is God and humanity working together in harmony. The notion of covenant reminds us that human beings are capable of “greatness,” but not in the sense of power and aggrandizement. Rather, we are capable of displaying care and compassion to one another, and we need one another if the world is to be made a better place. And it is in the space between me and you that we find God’s presence.

Rabbi David Ellenson recounts a conversation he had with his mother during his teenage years. “I remember asking her, “Do you really think all of the Torah – both written and oral – comes from God? And my mother responded by saying, “David, I do not know if every single word in the Bible and Talmud was quite literally given by God to Moses at Sinai. However, I can tell you that if the Bible and Talmud were written by men, it was men who were trying to understand what it is that God wants us to do in the world, so that if God were a human being, God would be happy to be a guest in your home.[7]” These Holy Days, allow God to be a guest in your home and begin creating a home that you would be happy to have God enter.” These Holy Days, allow God to be a guest in your home and begin creating a home that you would be happy to have God enter.

Edited February 24, 2008 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

My religion teaches differently. As my Rabbi said this past Yom Kippur (I'd put this in my own words but couldn't improve on this Rabbi's):

Religion allows for all kinds of child abuse. I shudder at the idea of those mohels baring their teeth at those poor baby boys.

[Guest American Woman]

Religion is an aggregation of specific beliefs and rituals, some of which are more violent and abusive than others. Whether the abuse is claiming that only one path will lead you to heaven or claiming that Allah wants you to martyr yourself, religion fundamentally relies on deception, and even self-deception (i.e., a "faith" that reason and rational analysis must be suspended), in order to function. I spoke of religion as a whole because some of the actions I consider abusive are common to all religions. But whether one speaks in specifics or generalities, people are still allowed to consider their own opinions to be the truth without being "fundamentalists." I'm not saying no one can disagree with me or anything.

Now, whether or not the perpetrators of this abuse are aware of the effects of their actions and are deliberately doing wrong is another story. I believe most such abusers likely feel they are doing right. But just like parents slapping their kids, that doesn't make their actions any less harmful.

There it is. That fundamentalist mindset again. That's all I'm saying. While it's great that you think it's ok for people to disagree with you, your opinion falls into the same type of thinking as the fundamentalists whose views are extreme. You focus on your interpretation of religion, applying the characteristics of your interpretation to the religious, and then judge accordingly-- and you just can't see that. I've pointed this out time and again and the thing is, you're never going to see it. And that's what makes you just like them.

Now you can keep arguing that you're not, but that won't change the fact that you are.

I'm not interested in discussing religion with you any more than I'm interested in discussing religion with a fundamentalist Christian, Jew, what have you. Because you're of the same extreme mindset and you cannot wrap your head around the idea that you might be wrong. That's been my only point in this thread. That you are just the opposite side of the coin.

I repeat. Like them, you're never going to see it, so I'll just leave it at that. As I said at the beginning of this thread, the only point I care to make is that you are similar in your mindsets, and that's been proven throughout this thread. Anyone who applies their extreme views to all is of the fundamentalist mindset. Furthermore, any belief that cannot be proven is not a "truth," and anyone who cannot recognize that and thinks their belief is "the truth" is of the same mindset, whether they believe in God or believe there is no God.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

I repeat. Like them, you're never going to see it, so I'll just leave it at that. As I said at the beginning of this thread, the only point I care to make is that you are similar in your mindsets, and that's been proven throughout this thread. Anyone who applies their extreme views to all is of the fundamentalist mindset. Furthermore, any belief that cannot be proven is not a "truth," and anyone who cannot recognize that and thinks their belief is "the truth" is of the same mindset, whether they believe in God or believe there is no God.

I'm glad I stlll have the courage to hold an opinion. I may be right or I may be wrong, but at least I still have faith in my rational ability to establish a perspective that I can consider a "truth" I can believe in. (But you forgot, I neither believe in God nor believe there is no God. I guess I'm just like you.)

[Guest American Woman]

I'm glad I stlll have the courage to hold an opinion. I may be right or I may be wrong, but at least I still have faith in my rational ability to establish a perspective that I can consider a "truth" I can believe in. (But you forgot, I neither believe in God nor believe there is no God. I guess I'm just like you.)

I don't know how you can decide that you're just like me since I've purposely avoided talking about my beliefs in this thread. But no, I haven't forgotten that you neither believe in God nor believe there is no God. Nor have I forgotten that you paint all "religion" with the same brush, nor have I forgotten that you put your interpretation of what you believe the religious think and do on religious people, seeing only the negatives and applying it to the whole, and judge accordingly. If you think that takes "courage," so be it. All I'm saying is you have the same mindset as the fundamentally religious. You might want to open your mind a bit and see some of the good that is done by the religious, with both their time and money, because there's a whole lot out there to see.

[BubberMiley]

I don't know how you can decide that you're just like me since I've purposely avoided talking about my beliefs in this thread.

You've stated clearly that you feel that it is "fundamentalist" and wrong to believe your own opinion to be the truth. In a religious context, that sounds like an agnostic talking.

You might want to open your mind a bit and see some of the good that is done by the religious, with both their time and money, because there's a whole lot out there to see.

I have recognized the good work of religion in this very thread. You might want to open your mind and read what I say and not extrapolate. I stated, however, that religion has done more harm than good, and that work could have been just as easily done in a secular context.

Edited February 24, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

You've stated clearly that you feel that it is "fundamentalist" and wrong to believe your own opinion to be the truth. In a religious context, that sounds like an agnostic talking.

That's because you tend to paint the religious all with the same brush. You have this rigid idea of what religion is, seeing only the negative, putting your connotation of it on all and judging accordingly, even if it's not the way it is in reality. In other words, you apply your beliefs to everyone, and that's what I think is similar to the "fundamentalist" mindset.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I have recognized the good work of religion in this very thread. You might want to open your mind and read what I say and not extrapolate. I stated, however, that religion has done more harm than good, and that work could have been just as easily done in a secular context.

I have read what you've had to say in this very thread. The fact that you say religion has done more harm than good and that the work could have been "just as easily done in a secular context" (but it hasn't been, has it? ) pretty much leads me to believe you aren't really seeing it for what it is.

[jbg]

I just love putting up a quality post and getting no response.

[sharkman]

Sometimes the most flattering response is when none is made at all. At any rate, I found your post just now and that Rabbi is right on.

The problem with Hitchens is he is arrogant enough to think his brain can solve the mystery of all religions. Some may be refuted by man since they are only invented by man after all. But one who idolizes his own brain will not be able to tell the difference.

[BubberMiley]

The problem with Hitchens is he is arrogant enough to think his brain can solve the mystery of all religions. Some may be refuted by man since they are only invented by man after all. But one who idolizes his own brain will not be able to tell the difference.

In reality, he believes modern science is the force that can transcend ancient religious thought, not his brain.

[sharkman]

Somehow I'm assuming that Hitchens is not listening to all science, only the pro-evolution anti god kind. And he does indeed idolize his own brain, five minutes of listening to him reveals this. Hey listen to whomever floats your boat, but personally I would discount the opinions of a guy with obviously such a huge religious chip on his shoulder.

[BubberMiley]

Somehow I'm assuming that Hitchens is not listening to all science, only the pro-evolution anti god kind.

Evolution isn't anti-god, and there is no other kind of science than evolutionary science. If you are talking about intelligent design, there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.

[jbg]

Evolution isn't anti-god, and there is no other kind of science than evolutionary science. If you are talking about intelligent design, there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.

Bubber, you and I agree to that extent. A Kodak moment.

That being said, I believe that belief in evolution and belief in G-d are perfectly reconcilable. The Bible says nothing about the length of the original seven days.

[BubberMiley]

Exactly. Why would an omnipotent god measure his days by the spinning of a yet-to-be created earth?