For a bloke who wears a dress......Follow

I don't see how saying that many posters here minimize the good and emphasize the bad in religion shows bias. It's demonstrably true.

Only if you can show that religion is better than is being portrayed.



You do exactly the opposite.



You realise Christianity and Islam make up almost 65% of all religion? It's oveewhelmingly inconveinient to argue against a diverse lot of religions. When generalising, talking about the vast majrity is perfectly acceptable. I addressed this in my very first post, (I have little against religion in theory) anyway.

That is not my assertion, though.

Then how do you explain social justice movements started by religious people?

Like the civil rights movements that start in African American churches? Or the fact that most organized movements against slavery period started in the Christian churches and against the more secularized business interests in the south? Settlement houses of the late 19th century came out of the Social Gospel movement and represented the first public social service agencies available to the poor and especially to the new immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. What about the actions of the Christian Socialist movement and in general, the Christian left in the US? They aren't questioning authority the same way that atheists are? What about liberation theology and the alignment of certain radical Catholic priests and nuns with Marxist revolutionaries in South America? What about Tibetan Monks protesting against the oppressive Chinese rule? What about Progressive Muslims like Amina Wadud, who fights for women's rights?

As for secular humanists, especially those who exist in wealthy western countries, I've seen plenty of complacency and not much more evidence of more organized movements for social justice than among religious people , unless I'm missing something.


I think humans invariably follow the status quo and only take risks if they deem it to be necessary. I think too that their use of religion have alot to do with who they are--as it is a tool rather than something that defines them. I've worked with a lot of people in social justice movement, in prisons and with the poor that have strong religious affiliations, most Christian and Jewish but some other types as well and usually they are just as diverse as atheists.


I don't see this oppression as being inherent to religion as much as it usually has to do with culture, domination and more often than not--poverty and a lack of resources. Oligarchy is dangerous. I think you really underestimate the power of culture and tradition. I think too that I haven't seen evidence that secular governments are inherently free from war and persecution. I think that stability occurs for other reasons, like economics, especially when you consider the instability of poor, secularized governments and the corruption and persecution that takes place regardless of the presence of religion.

Edited, Dec 29th 2008 10:52am by Annabella

No, missed it again. My assertion is that many people here do demonstrably emphasize the negatives of religion and ignore the positive aspects. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, only that the bias is there.

I was brought up in a strong religious tradition. I know that there is great comfort in faith, and in the sort of fellowship that shared faith brings. And no, getting together once a week to say, collectively, "Yeah, God. Still not there." probably wouldn't have the same impact on peoples' lives.

I no longer believe, but I can respect those who do without adding a disclaimer about the inherent evils of religion.

Like this. Not only do you minimize the effects of Stalinism (i.e. 20 million people killed during his era with longterm implications, including with the current leadership) but you blame the problems in Ireland solely on religion and not on issues of colonialism and British occupation. Really, part of my issue, Kavekk, is that you didn't prove your point. You just stated as if it must be fact because you said so.

Edited, Dec 29th 2008 10:58am by Annabella

I agree. I think that is a very inherently human trait. We need in and out groups, it helps with cohesion. I just don't think the problems associated with them are exclusive to religious groups. I think they are exclusive to humans.

Man, have you talked to any adolescents these days? :P

It's not a matter of me proving you wrong--it's a matter of you having enough evidence to support your assertion, even as a theory. What you have presented has not proven anything.



I understood your implication. I don't think you understand the long-term effects of Stalinism. And you minimized it to support a spurious argument. I'd rather live in Ireland than in Russia.

And let me put forth this other pet peeve of Alla, people often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.




Edited, Dec 29th 2008 11:14am by Annabella

Ooooh the burden on poor Kavekk. So you have no demonstrable evidence but you expect me to believe you based on faith or something? Sorry, I actually question your views. :P But apparently I'm unreasonable and even though you have a lot of really great arguments, you aren't gonna present them b/c I'm unable to listen to them. You p*ssy.



What I see you do is try to cram a poorly conceived analogy down my throat.

Edited, Dec 29th 2008 11:48am by Annabella

I don't know why you are convinced I'm looking for proof. I'm looking for a decent argument. Don't start acting like this is my sh*t.



Do you have an example and evidence that in large, that religious zeal results in killing other people more often and effectively than nationalistic zeal?


Edited, Dec 29th 2008 11:53am by Annabella

And in the next sentence:



The word "proven".

Here we go, then:

The Irish conflict starts with nationalism, in a way; the Catholic Irish in NI feel oppressed by the Protestant British and Irish, who were in a majority (although the Plantation of Ulster had both nationalistic and religious aims. The protestant population rigged council elections and held most of the power, whereas in the Republic you have the Ne Temere decrees (religious in nature). Although the problem originates as a nationalistic conflict, it becomes a religious one, as the political poles are roughly aligned with the religious ones. Discrimination and violence is not done against specifically nationalist catholics and specifically unionist protestants.

Ireland was coplonised all the way back in the 1600s. It is ridiculous to claim that they would still be rebelling against British rule in 1970s if not for the religious factor which stopped Ireland from intergrating with Britain, which provided a basis for discrimination and kept the conflict seething on to burst into violence.



Ireland.

Hur hur.

What part specifically do you object to?

That's irrelevant. I haven't studied Ireland in depth, though, and you may be right. I'd be interested if you explained why you think I am, rather than evading the question.