Is it now time we banned all regions?

Q - How many people throughout history have died in wars fought in the name of religion?

Q - Can it be right to stone someone to death in the name of a religious belief?

Q - Why do we allow religions to be preached when they legitimise atrocities such as "honour" killings?

Q - Why do people still donate money to Christian churches that seem to have nothing more important on their minds than whether a gay man should be bishop?

Ok, so it isn't actually possible to ban religions but isn't it time the world grew up and discarded this illogical practice?

To me, religion is no more than an emotional crutch that was "invented" to explain things people didn't understand and to try and give "reason" for our existence. Whilst this in itself might be harmless enough, the reality is that religion has been used throughout history (and to this day) as a tool for unscrupulous people to control the masses and attain positions of wealth and power. I say ban religion!

Q - Why do we allow religions to be preached when they legitimise atrocities such as "honour" killings?
As far as I know, no religion teaches us to kill people. The only thing that preaches us to kill each other are radicle extremists who use religion as an excuse. It's sick and it's wrong. It's not religion we should ban, it's people who take things too far.

I believe the term is fundamentalist.

We have them in paganism too - it seems a sad part of human nature that they just have to go that bit further.

What amazes me even more is some peoples reactions. Of course my beliefs are the opposite end to christianity and for them in direct opposition - but I was gobsmacked to recieve stupid comments from a jewish lady at Norfolk park. Surely the Jewish community should have learned the lessons of intolerance??

Ah well

Moon

When you say 'religion' it is very important to distinguish between organised religion and personal religion.

Organised religion is the grand structures that surround the belief system, with dogma & commandments, riches & treasure, pontiffs, cardinals, Grand Wazoos, & the rest of the silly hat brigade.

Personal religion is that core belief in something greater than all of us, often but not always, sublimated into an organised religion. Whether it actually points to a real deity, or merely is a coping strategy for existential angst is not really relevant to this thread.

Most people are actually quite nice, despite cultural and religious/ideological differences, yet when they gather together into groups, they are prone to being manipulated more easily than normal. They are able to give precedence to their more 'animal' urges because the group erases their identity and therefore any sense of personal responsibility. This was demonstrated to chilling effect in Rwanda, where previously peaceable neighbours were incited to hack each other to bits by the oratory of terror.

Organised religion is used by people to commit acts of inhuman cruelty and degradation. But religion is not a requirement, just a useful channel. You could equally easily invent your own neo-mythology and ideology a la Hitler, the drawback is that you must get people to join the organisation before you start your evil plans.

With religion you have a ready made membership who hold certain things sacred. It's not difficult, then, to hold these sacred things up as being in grave danger from x and declaring a crusade against x. Plus ça change....

Banning religion merely makes it more fervent, as a persecution complex does much to engender zeal and extremism.

However, religion has been around so long that it is inextricably linked with the affairs of state, right back to when we used to have kings that ruled by divine right (a carve up between the two greatest powers of the time, church and warrior warlord). So, to my mind that would be a good start, kick all the religious elements out of government. No alliegances to God, no Bishops in the house of Lords by automatic right, no special treatment in law.

But you can't ban religion, that is totalitarian in the extreme.

Phanerothyme, I agree. I wish I could have put it so eloquently!

I was watching a news story last night about a Kurdistan man - living in England - jailed for killing his daughter because she was starting to be influenced by Western life and turning her back on her Moslem faith that her family had thrust upon her.

The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

- Tao Te Ching.

I think it is only human nature to try and grasp the ungraspable and put a name on it.

The problems start when we believe that our own particular labels and words are the 'right ones'.

If you think you have it ... you can be sure that you don't.

Organised religion has just become a slush fund for the court cases and out of court settlements of Paedophiles. It has been for decades. In the US alone $1 Billion of contributions for the so called 'moral minority' has been used to keep Paedophiles out of court. That $1 Billion was BEFORE the current media activity.

As far as i am concerned if you go to Church, you put your money in the box and you DON'T tell the church you don't want you money used to protect these people, then you are guilty of protecting these people.

Also we won't go in to the Catholic church investing in arms companies either.

The sad thing is the people going to church have become the financers of some of the LEAST moral things we currently have to tolerate on earth. The Church cannot preach moral or ethical issues, so what is it's purpose? To teach us how to live our lives? Bhah.

I don't think you can make it illegal, but we should certainly bring them to account. The Church should VOLUNTEER not to pay out of court settlements, it should volunteer not to pay the legal fee's of it's members.

Originally posted by JamieW
The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.

The name that can be names is not the eternal Name.

- Tao Te Ching.

I think it is only human nature to try and grasp the ungraspable and put a name on it.

The problems start when we believe that our own particular labels and words are the 'right ones'.

If you think you have it ... you can be sure that you don't.
eloquently put

Originally posted by back2basics
Organised religion has just become a slush fund for the court cases and out of court settlements of Paedophiles. It has been for decades. In the US alone $1 Billion of contributions for the so called 'moral minority' has been used to keep Paedophiles out of court. That $1 Billion was BEFORE the current media activity.

As far as i am concerned if you go to Church, you put your money in the box and you DON'T tell the church you don't want you money used to protect these people, then you are guilty of protecting these people.

Also we won't go in to the Catholic church investing in arms companies either.

The sad thing is the people going to church have become the financers of some of the LEAST moral things we currently have to tolerate on earth. The Church cannot preach moral or ethical issues, so what is it's purpose? To teach us how to live our lives? Bhah.

I don't think you can make it illegal, but we should certainly bring them to account. The Church should VOLUNTEER not to pay out of court settlements, it should volunteer not to pay the legal fee's of it's members.
What's all this bilge? Would you like to present us with some evidence?

Apparently the bible actually predicts that all religions will be overturned by political forces before long.

Are we calling for a ban on religion or a ban on god and the bible? Two totally different things.

Originally posted by JamieW
The Tao that can be talked about is not the true Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

- Tao Te Ching.

I think it is only human nature to try and grasp the ungraspable and put a name on it.

The problems start when we believe that our own particular labels and words are the 'right ones'.

If you think you have it ... you can be sure that you don't.

I agree Jamie.

See my signature – or as Jesus of Nazareth put it: Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.( Matt. 26:28)
Or as Lao Tsu put it: Do you think you can take over the Universe and improve it? I do not think it can be done. The Universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it. (Tao Te Ching: chap. 29)
Cf. the last line of Lao Tsu with the Nazarene: Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. ( Luke 17:33)
Albert Camus once said: The only serious philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide, whereas Shakespeare put it another way: To be or not to be …

See also my avatar.

It works for me.

You make some very valid points, but what would you gain by banning religion? some people have a deep faith in whatever religion they practice.

To take your view to it's logical conclusion. why not ban cinemas, theatres, newspapers, public houses etc, this is just as illogical as ban religion!!!

Thanks for sharing those 'spiritual truths' Carl ... was very nice to hear the same meaning expressed in words by different 'sources'.

I think there is good and bad in most things and this is certainly the case with religion. Not all good and not all bad.

I believe in god and I call it 'everything and nothing' ... and that is only when I am not calling it 'nature' or 'tao' ... or just not calling it anything at all.

Maybe we should focus more on finding what we have in common with people from other spiritual traditions?

Why don't we do that?

Why are we always in 'I'm right and you're wrong' mode?

*praying that I am not opening a can of worms here or upsetting anyone ... it is not my intention to do so*

I have long believed in the ‘unity’ of the major world religions – and by this I mean the teachings of the persons upon whose words and sayings they were founded - I have very little time for the dogma, etc of churches and organizations, or the mass of material wealth that they have amassed. Jesus said: The Kingdom of God is within, Plato, via Socrates: know thyself, etc.

If people, of like-minded beliefs, wish to get together to worship – all well and good – great music and works of art have been a result of their collective beliefs. Thus organized religion does have its good points – and I’m certain that there are many good and pious persons among the different groups. However, when they try to enforce their beliefs on others, it is a different story – and, historically, great harm has been done because of this. I’ve found it ironic that priests and chaplains are at state-sponsored executions, as well as being there officially during wars – yet one of the commandments is: Thou shalt not kill. Interestingly, an American translation of the Bible changed ‘kill’ to ‘murder’ (in the ‘60’s, I think). I tend to believe that ALL life is sacred.

I could, of course, go on and on … but here endeth the lesson!

Ps. Aldous Huxley wrote ‘The Perennial Philosophy’ in 1944 – a tract about the unity of all ‘religions’ – it’s still valid, even in this secular age.

"Neti, Neti" - Not this, not that. Sanskrit words expressing the inexpressible - the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Transcendental, the Divine, God, Tao …

Originally posted by Sidla
What's all this bilge? Would you like to present us with some evidence?

3 out of court settlements
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/01/30/ke013003s358102.htm

http://www.financial-links.biz/directory/out-of-court-settlements/index.shtml

Total payments from 1985 could reach 1billion. And thats just the cases that the church doesn't DEMAND a gag order so we will never know. VERY moral.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/1923484.stm

Some more
http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/011703/011703l.htm

Court bans secret out of court settlement that the catholic church was using to protect Paedophiles anonymity (always a good idea, one rule for normal people, but God protects his own).
http://www.researchprotection.org/infomail/0902/02.html

And this is just the Catholic church and in recent times and in America. Of course before these days of accountability the church did a great job of covering it up and not even paying.

As for investing in immoral causes (such as arms companies) it's pretty well documented. I assume you are a church goes who put's your money in the box and hopes it goes to God? If so i think the right thing to do would be ask for you money not to go to the 'cause' as you (and the company/church you fund) are effectively funding the protection of Paedophiles.

Bilge? I think not. And remember for ever person that can bring a claim, there are many that cannot due to 25 year rules etc. It's just the tip of the iceburg. Fact is Paedophiles are attracted to the Church, they can use fear and power to keep their victims quiet and they always know the Church will be their to bail them out.

Just for the record here is a story about The C of E investing in arms firms... and they still are.

http://www.caat.org.uk/information/magazine/1100/christian-network.php

My problem with religion is the way in which it's been used to control and manipulate people throughout history. I also have concerns about the ritualistic aspects of many religions. Here are some of the ritualistic and completely illogical practices and beliefs (there are hundreds more I could think of) from different religions...

- Cutting the foreskin from babies
- Hacking clitoris's off young women
- Stoning people to death
- Can't eat pig but cow is OK, or
- Can't eat cow but pig is OK
- Imprisonment for shaving your beard
- Can't work on a Saturday, or
- Can't work on a Sunday
- Women must cover their bodies from head to toe
- Women must not be educated
- Cutting off the hands of thieves
- Death to all non-believers

I don't have a problem with people having beliefs but religion turns beliefs into something more "organised". Once it becomes organised these ritualistic nonsense’s seem to drift in, as do the unscrupulous people who corrupt it to serve their own agendas.

I don't like religion - any religion. I think there’d be a lot less pain, death and misery in the world without it. OK, so we can’t ban it but I for one will do all I can to talk people out of it!

Originally posted by Zamo
My problem with religion is the way in which it's been used to control and manipulate people throughout history. I also have concerns about the ritualistic aspects of many religions. Here are some of the ritualistic and completely illogical practices and beliefs (there are hundreds more I could think of) from different religions...I don't have a problem with people having beliefs but religion turns beliefs into something more "organised". Once it becomes organised these ritualistic nonsense’s seem to drift in, as do the unscrupulous people who corrupt it to serve their own agendas.

I don't like religion - any religion. I think there’d be a lot less pain, death and misery in the world without it. OK, so we can’t ban it but I for one will do all I can to talk people out of it!

Why not channel your energies into something positive and ‘pro’, rather than feed your negative and ‘anti’ ones. Hatred always harms the hater and the Self.

As Cyril Connolly (1903–1974), British critic. The Unquiet Grave, pt. 3, Harper (1944), wrote:

There is no hate without fear. Hate is crystallized fear, fear’s dividend, fear objectivized. We hate what we fear and so where hate is, fear will be lurking. Thus we hate what threatens our person, our liberty, our privacy, our income, our popularity, our vanity and our dreams and our plans for ourselves. If we can isolate this element in what we hate we may be able to cease from hating. Analyse in this way the hatred of ideas or of the kind of people whom we have once loved and whose faces are preserved in Spirits of Anger. Hate is the consequence of fear; we fear something before we hate; the child who fears noises becomes the man who hates them.

'the child who fears noises becomes the man who hates them.'

There are $1 billion worth of children fearing voices and grow to hate the voices of the men who abuse them.

Can the Church not put it's money and weight behind positive things? $1 billion could have saved many lives.

Where in the bible does it say 'if tho doest commit sexual abuse we will forgive you, pay for your errors and give you another job... but homosexuals must rot in hell'.

On one hand the Church is saying homosexuality is immoral, on the other it protects paedophiles. Having sex with somebody you love, but who is the same sex is wrong. But forcing yourself on a child and abusing your power is not just something we can forgive. And this is on a HUGE scale. Worldwide thousands of cases, hundreds of Church leaders all covering up, hiding the offence and moving them to a different position!

Hypocrisy to the highest order.

Can the Church people please just ask me if they feel any guilt for indirectly protecting these monsters? And if not why not?

Carlwarker, trust me, I don't hate anyone because they have "beliefs". What I hate is religions that preach barbaric and ritualist practices, supresses people, "damns" all non-believers and covers-up wrong doing to protect their position of power.

Zach also the Church has held back science at every turn. They would finance personal attacks on eminent scientists to discredit their work. Now notice that they didn't try to discredit their work, just the scientists personal life.

As we speak the Church is trying to limit our children's education be removing evolution from the curriculum. The bigotry and hate coming from the Church is never ending.

Also they spend their money of pseudo-science while knocking real science. Spending money investigating miracles, Jesus head appears in an orange and the Vatican send out people to look in to the claim. I mean it's ludicrous.

Sadly we cannot make it illegal. But what we can do is educate people to the crimes of religion and hope that they are intelligent enough to know the Church is not moral and strong enough not to need an emotional crutch.

I agree with most of what you have said Zach. I agree people are entitled to faith, but organised religion is what is the problem.

First of all, I thought that this was a thread on 'Religion', not on 'Child Abuse' - horrible as it may be - so please, if it's so important to you, then start a new thread.

Secondly, if you read my previous posts on this thread, you will find that I have no time for churches or organized religion. However, don't make the error of 'tarring everyone with the same brush' - not all church-goers are child-abusers.

As I indicated earlier - 'hatred always harms the hater'.

Child abuse is VERY relevant to this thread. Churches have a much higher occurrence of child abuse than any other section of society.

And although i do not tar everybody with the same brush, you must understand that the money put in to the collection boxes (and taken out of peoples bank accounts) are being used to protect these people.

You were quoting what i assume to be the bible, i was just offering another take on the same text.

There has been no calls from the regular (mainly good) people of the church for this not to happen. Why? Am i to assume these people are fine with their money going in that direction, or is it just general empathy?

Sorry if i took your post the wrong way. But let me ask you a question, If you know your money is being spent on evil and you still allow it to happen, what does that make you?

Also i hate Hitler and it's never done me any harm, and i suspect never will. If your talking about Karma, don't even get me started on a mantra that says disabled people are paying for crimes in apast life!

I can see where you're coming from Zamo.

When people organise themselfs in to groups ... always there are dangers and people who will seek to manipulate and control the group dynamic to their own ends.

I agree with what Carlwarler is saying about *IT* being inside yourself ... and it isn't anything anyone can give you ... be that a religious group or another person / spiritual teacher / whatever.

That is not to say that all religions are bad ... they can help you to develop a fuller experience of that *IT* inside yourself ... is that such a bad thing Zamo?

What is really dangerous is when people consider group beliefs and the external trappings / rituals / dogma of a belief system ... to have more validity than what they have experienced directly for themselfs inside themselfs.

The following is an extract from a book, that I thought I'd share:

Finally, learning to adapt to each new circumstance means seeing events through your own eyes, and often ignoring the advice that people constantly peddle your way. It means that ultimately you must throw out the laws that others preach, and the books they write to tell you what to do, and the sage advice of the elder.

"The laws that govern circumstances are abolished by new circumstances," Napoleon wrote, which means that it is up to you to guage each new situation.

Rely too much on other people's ideas and you end up taking a form not of your own making. Too much respect for other people's wisdom will make you depreciate your own. Be brutal with the past, especially your own, and have no respect for the philosophies that are foisted on you from the outside.

Originally posted by back2basics

... You were quoting what i assume to be the bible, i was just offering another take on the same text ...

Sorry if i took your post the wrong way. But let me ask you a question, If you know your money is being spent on evil and you still allow it to happen, what does that make you?

Also i hate Hitler and it's never done me any harm, and i suspect never will. If your talking about Karma, don't even get me started on a mantra that says disabled people are paying for crimes in apast life!

Firstly, please READ my posts, I quoted the source, chapter and verse (Cyril Connolly (1903–1974), British critic).

Secondly, it makes me a War protester.

And lastly, I never mentioned Karma, and certainly not in that bigotted way - we do, however, have the English saying: 'What goes around, comes around'.

Originally posted by back2basics
Child abuse is VERY relevant to this thread. Churches have a much higher occurrence of child abuse than any other section of society.
Evidence please.

Originally posted by Zamo

- Can't work on a Saturday, or
- Can't work on a Sunday


Fine by me.

Originally posted by Sidla
Evidence please.

Thousands of cases in the US. 11,00 cases in Ireland (and a possible 1 billion Euro bill there http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3156750.stm), numerous cases here, in places like Africa countries the atrocities still caused under the name of god are horrendous.

There aren't that many Vicars, Priests etc. The figures are on line. You work out the math ;) Some things in life you just have to work out for yourself ;) I have started you off down the road to righteousness, now you must go it alone :) (sorry).

Originally posted by Sidla
Evidence please.
What will you do with it? I only ask beacuse you have shown resistance to evidence in the past :)

Originally posted by back2basics
Child abuse is VERY relevant to this thread. Churches have a much higher occurrence of child abuse than any other section of society.

Has anyone else noticed how many coppers have been arrested by the team investigating the people who have paid to join child porn websites?

Over 50 I believe

Yeah loise B, positions of power. Teachers, Police, Vicars etc all great careers for the peadophiles.

They should burn in hell but then the church would have to go on a recruitment drive ;)

Originally posted by Sidla
As far as I know, no religion teaches us to kill people. The only thing that preaches us to kill each other are radicle extremists who use religion as an excuse. It's sick and it's wrong. It's not religion we should ban, it's people who take things too far.
Who's to judge what is extreme and what isn't? Just because something may appear extreme to you or me does that mean it isn't a religion?

There are religions that teach it's followers to kill. Here's one as reported in this bbc news article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3155112.stm).

Earlier today I said that I was so pleased to see so much support offered to Pippa on her being 'attacked' on the email, and how good it made me feel.

Is this the same forum? Are these the same people?

I have never seen so much 'educated drivel' in one place, and filled so full of hate. To those who have so much against religion, get involved yourselves, and then change it from within, or find a hobby, studying butterflies, or something, to calm your nerves.

While you may be able to support your arguments with notable quotations(I am jealous, as I have never been able to remember them), your basic tenets are flawed. Do not blame religion for all the evil in the world. Throughout history there have been those who have been truly evil, and there are still those who are. Often, they claim some religious belief, but only insofar as it helps them achieve their goals.

Let's rail against them.

But for Christ's sake, leave religion alone for a while. Oh, I do not go to church.

Originally posted by BigD
[snip]
But for Christ's sake, leave religion alone for a while.

:lol: That's better than the 'Adam' one.

Nomme

Originally posted by BigD
Earlier today I said that I was so pleased to see so much support offered to Pippa on her being 'attacked' on the email, and how good it made me feel.

Is this the same forum? Are these the same people?

I have never seen so much 'educated drivel' in one place, and filled so full of hate. To those who have so much against religion, get involved yourselves, and then change it from within, or find a hobby, studying butterflies, or something, to calm your nerves.

While you may be able to support your arguments with notable quotations(I am jealous, as I have never been able to remember them), your basic tenets are flawed. Do not blame religion for all the evil in the world. Throughout history there have been those who have been truly evil, and there are still those who are. Often, they claim some religious belief, but only insofar as it helps them achieve their goals.

Let's rail against them.

But for Christ's sake, leave religion alone for a while. Oh, I do not go to church.
Nobody is saying religion is resp for "all the evil in the world" but just because it is not responsible for it all does that mean it does not have to account for that which it is resp? What about the millions who have died fighting wars in the name of religion, the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the poor, the duplicity of their preaching’s, the hiding of wrong-doing etc. etc. The list is endless.

The bottom line is that religion does more harm than good.

Originally posted by Zamo
The bottom line is that religion does more harm than good.

Amen :)

Are people in religions ... or is religion in people !?

Bottom line is ... people do more harm than good.

Originally posted by JamieW
Are people in religions ... or is religion in people !?

Bottom line is ... people do more harm than good.
Agreed, but that's not an argument!

Is it not right to ban guns even though it is "people" that pull the trigger?

Originally posted by JamieW
Are people in religions ... or is religion in people !?



Religion recruits, like any other organisation. Most people 'find' religion during time of difficulty. Some religions even check the obituaries and visit houses. Far be it for me to say that if you catch somebody at their most vulnerable they are more susceptible to 'recruitment'.

Most religions are concentrating on third world countries. Because of the poverty people are more susceptible to God. Look back through history, when the Church has been strong it's always been during times of hardship. They are aware of this and IMO play on it. Some of the evangelist groups in the third world are doing some horrible things. People are starving but these 'men of god' take their money, act irresponsibly and people are still dying in the name of god.

I think kids need a moral guide, the church can never be it. I mean an ex-alcoholic is the best person to talk to about alcohol abuse, but only because he has changed. The Church has done so much wrong but never repented it's own sins, it's still commits them. It can never be used as a moral guide until it get's rid of the paedophiles for good and changes it's ways. At grass routes there are many people doing good things in the Church, but as an organisation they are evil (by their own definition).

Following on from this logic:
The greatest (as in largest, not best) acts of mass murder in recent times have been committed by strictly atheist organisations - (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia) - Tens of millions of people murdered in cold blood by die hard atheists. so presumably we need to ban all religions and non-religious organisations too?

Which doesn't leave much really.

Are all religions so bad, or just fundamentalist Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Islam etc?

What about Baha'i, or Quakers, or Zen Bhuddists or Zoroastrians, or Jains, or any number of spiritually rather than materially motivated organisations?

I have many sympathies with these religions, even though I am a devout agnostic. So let's not go grouping the Vatican gold hoarders, Mad Mullahs and TV evangelists together with Jain monks, Baha'i and the society of friends eh? Baby and Bathwater spring to mind. Much good is done with religion, but like good news, it rarely makes the headlines.

Originally posted by Zamo
Agreed, but that's not an argument!

Is it not right to ban guns even though it is "people" that pull the trigger?
*ouch* That's a terrible analogy.

how is a gun like religion?

can 3 year olds blow their heads off with it or something?

BAN PEOPLE! problem solved.

Hold on Hitler was killing the Jews (and gays etc) but his hatred of the Jews was on a religious level.

He also was not an atheist and said on numerous occasions that he would exterminate the Jews because it was gods wish. (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march97/holocaust.html).

I would say a a general rule, if the religion asks you for money then that is their motivation. For every good religion there are many bad.

At least scientology admits it's after your money!

You make a lot of sense there Phan ... with the baby and the bath water thingy.

I certainly don't think all religions are bad and need 'banning' ... it is not at all cut and dry like that.

Some religions are a useful vehicle for the spiritual development of people. Should we also be banning spiritual development ?

There's good and bad in everything ...

Originally posted by back2basics
[B]Hold on Hitler was killing the Jews (and gays etc) but his hatred of the Jews was on a religious level.

But his 'religion' was a cult of the personality, not an appeal to his adherents that they were working for a higher agency than himself.

He also was not an atheist and said on numerous occasions that he would exterminate the Jews because it was gods wish. (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march97/holocaust.html).


Granted, although it is a stretch to say Nazism was a religion nevertheless, and this still leaves Stalin unnacounted for.

Probably most russians were quiet Orthodox Christians and Muslims, but the millions killed throughout the purges were not murdered for any religious motivation on either side

The Church (well God) has always been a control system. Thats how it came in to being. Although Hitler may have claimed it was a holy war, i am sure he was just using it as justification and control. Most dictators work this way. If Saddam didn't have religion he would never have been able to control his people.

Stalin is different, he was scared of religion because they had power. A power he wanted. He tried to take on the Church, rather than use it. Obviously a bad choice. I think Stalin would have chosen a different route in hindsight.

Even Henry 8th knew how to use religion to your own effect.

This is a very difficult topic in my view

As a member of a christian church myself, I can say that my faith has been a comfort when life has been crap.

I have not personally engaged in war or abuse or taking people's money in the name of christianity, but I know it has happened.

Do we think that it is the people in power at the top of religions (I am thinking about the Pope in centuries gone by for instance, who called for Holy Crusades) that have done the damage, rather than the religion itself?

Do we mean "ban religion" or do we really mean "ban religious organisations" I am not sure I can make the distinction in writing, but I know what it is in my head.
Like err...Jesus was really a bit of a pacifist, but 1200 years later Richard 1st was popping off overseas to see to the infidel at the instructions of the pope

We already have asked whether the trappings of the church might attract some individuals with unsavoury ambitions. Is that the fault of the church?

I dont know the answer to these questions, but as far as I know my local methodist church does no-one any harm and lots of people a bit of good, so I wouldnt like to see it banned in the round.

Originally posted by back2basics
Thousands of cases in the US. 11,00 cases in Ireland (and a possible 1 billion Euro bill there http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/3156750.stm), numerous cases here, in places like Africa countries the atrocities still caused under the name of god are horrendous.

There aren't that many Vicars, Priests etc. The figures are on line. You work out the math ;) Some things in life you just have to work out for yourself ;) I have started you off down the road to righteousness, now you must go it alone :) (sorry).
That site is talking about the Irish church, not the C of E. Also it doesn't prove that "Churches have a much higher occurrence of child abuse than any other section of society".
Originally posted by Phanerothyme

What will you do with it? I only ask beacuse you have shown resistance to evidence in the past :)
Evidence doesn't always equate to truth.

Originally posted by Sidla
That site is talking about the Irish church, not the C of E. Also it doesn't prove that "Churches have a much higher occurrence of child abuse than any other section of society".

Evidence doesn't always equate to truth.

I never specifically talked about number of abuse cases in the C of E church. I did mention it.

The proof is in a simple division number or priests/ abuse cases. 11 THOUSAND in Ireland ALONE. There are no other section of society that have stats like that.

Evidance does not always = truth, but YOU were ther person (twice) calling for it.

What is obvious is you are not open to the truth.

Just noticed silda is a mod, so this may be less of a protection of C of E and more a moderators acuracy drive. Bit silda if so, please make sure everybody is corrected. And i sask you to give me even the slightest shred of evidance of another section of society with higher abuse rates.

Technically i would be wrong, most abuse is by family members. But that not really 'a section of society', and nobody is covering up for them.



Sidla, i have complied with your wishes offering stats, and reputable web sites with information.

Now please answer some of my question.

I assume you go to a C of E church? (one of the worst Church's for murder BTW, in fact founded on murder, by somebody who wanted to get divorced!).

Knowing that your Church has used some of the collection box money to settle court cases out of court. Have you ever mentioned to anybody in your Church you do not want it used for this kind of thing?

Do you feel happy with it being used for that?

I would like to know ...

What actual practical steps ... you intend to take to ban religion?

Have you thought about how you will acheive your goal?

Do you intend to do so single handed ... or will you organise people in to a group ... kinda like creating an organisation to get rid of something you don't like (sounds familiar) ...

Jamie, we all know it is impractical to ban religion so there's no great point score there.

Me personally, I will just do my best to try and persuade people to think more from themselves rather than be lead by groups preaching made-up theories and ritualistic practices.

Will I form a organisation or group to promote my cause... now we all know that's a slippery slope!;) :)

I'm not too bothered about 'scoring points' zamo ... because I would only end up winning and getting more concieted than I already am ...

*joking*

I think there is 'good' and 'bad' in everything ... including religion.

Be interested to know what good ... mr zamo and mr back2basics can find with (any) religion?

Originally posted by JamieW
I'm not too bothered about 'scoring points' zamo ... because I would only end up winning and getting more concieted than I already am ...

*joking*

I think there is 'good' and 'bad' in everything ... including religion.

Be interested to know what good ... mr zamo and mr back2basics can find with (any) religion?
Oh no... we'll not succumb to the old reverse psychology trick!

Originally posted by back2basics
Just noticed silda is a mod, so this may be less of a protection of C of E and more a moderators acuracy drive. Bit silda if so, please make sure everybody is corrected. And i sask you to give me even the slightest shred of evidance of another section of society with higher abuse rates.

Technically i would be wrong, most abuse is by family members. But that not really 'a section of society', and nobody is covering up for them.



Sidla, i have complied with your wishes offering stats, and reputable web sites with information.

Now please answer some of my question.

I assume you go to a C of E church? (one of the worst Church's for murder BTW, in fact founded on murder, by somebody who wanted to get divorced!).

Knowing that your Church has used some of the collection box money to settle court cases out of court. Have you ever mentioned to anybody in your Church you do not want it used for this kind of thing?

Do you feel happy with it being used for that?
Yes I go to my local church when I'm at home, which happens to be C of E. You can't say that the church endorces murder just because of things that happened over 500 years ago.

I'm ashamed to admit that I don't really give money to the church. I try to help the church in other ways because I don't have much money to spare. However, if I did give money to the church I would be angered if this money was going to buy weapons or out of court settlements as you say. I'm a fairly naive person, and I'd rather be sceptical than sinical. That is why I like to read as much about this sort of thing as I can before jumping to conclusions.

The bottom line really is that all religion is founded on lies (or at least the ignorance of primitive people which has been perpetuated through the centuries).

In other words: a long time ago people made stuff up because it made them feel better. Now in the 21st century we are living with these vast, powerful and infinitely dangerous institutions which actively promote untruths for their own ends.

It's fine if religion comforts people, but by the same token: what's wrong with the TRUTH? It's science, reason, philosophy, etc that dragged humans out of the swamps. Not fairy stories.

Remember - God is just Santa for grown ups. Pure and simple.

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
Remember - God is just Santa for grown ups. Pure and simple.

You will be laughing on the other side of your face come judgement day pal!

:lol:

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
It's fine if religion comforts people, but by the same token: what's wrong with the TRUTH? It's science, reason, philosophy, etc that dragged humans out of the swamps. Not fairy stories.
But what if the truth is that there is a God? Science can't disprove that.

At the end of the day, I believe that Jesus did live and he was the ultimate role-model. He didn't judge other people, he had no discriminations and he taught us to love and respect each other. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, it's worth reading about what he (supposedly) did, because I believe if everyone followed Jesus' philosophy the world would be a perfect place.

Originally posted by Sidla
But what if the truth is that there is a God? Science can't disprove that.
.

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim, not with those who refute it. Otherwise, I will tell you about the 12 foot rabbit who lives in my shed, but just happens to be out everytime you look in there. You can't prove he doesn't exist, can you?

Good, cos HE DOES!!!

Originally posted by LouiseB
[B]You will be laughing on the other side of your face come judgement day pal!


Probably a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment Louise - but I can't really get around the Christian concept of an 'All-loving God' who can condemn someone to eternal damnation.

Rather like these two quotations on that topic:

'A belief in hell and the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton have never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumour.' - Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), “Variations on a Baroque Tomb,” Themes and Variations (1950).

Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. - David Hume (1711–1776), “Of the Immortality of the Soul,” unpublished essay I, p. 594.

Originally posted by LouiseB
You will be laughing on the other side of your face come judgement day pal!


A fair point - and a good illustration of the sort of incentive used by religious types to keep the masses' faces in the dirt over the centuries.

Looking at it another way: if there is a god and judgment day really does come, I like to think that, in all her omniscience and benevolence, she will recognise me as someone who wasn't such a bad sort and let me in anyway.

What do you reckon?

Originally posted by Sidla
At the end of the day, I believe that Jesus did live and he was the ultimate role-model. He didn't judge other people, he had no discriminations and he taught us to love and respect each other. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, it's worth reading about what he (supposedly) did, because I believe if everyone followed Jesus' philosophy the world would be a perfect place.

Can't argue with any of that, but what you're talking about now is a whole different ballgame - nothing to do with the big man upstairs in the white beard.

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
Can't argue with any of that, but what you're talking about now is a whole different ballgame - nothing to do with the big man upstairs in the white beard.
I accept that. God or no God, it's good to have someone to look up to.

MichaelTravis

Of course it was a joke, that was why the smiley face was there

I am sure God would be loving and delighted to welcome you on the day when your number is up

My old Granddad was an atheist, whereas as I am a believer

I remember saying to him that if he was right then he wouldnt know anything about it and if I was right he would be pleasantly surprised

That is what I was trying to say to the non-believers, in a jokey tongue in cheek way

You in your small corner mate, and I in mine

Originally posted by LouiseB


You in your small corner mate, and I in mine

Let's not hang around in small corners. They're draughty and uncomfortable.

Originally posted by LouiseB
You will be laughing on the other side of your face come judgement day pal!

:lol:

So will you if god turns out to be a cow. :D

Originally posted by max
So will you if god turns out to be a cow. :D

And now folks - a debate upon the sexuality of God - man, woman or bi?

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And now folks - a debate upon the sexuality of God - man, woman or bi?

And which category, exactly, does the cow fall into?

After the 'Bigots at Large' thread, I am NOT going up that alleyway.:lol:

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And now folks - a debate upon the sexuality of God - man, woman or bi?

I thought about this in the car coming home tonight, I could guess it was coming after MichaelTravis called God a her.

Personally I think God was here before gender, before Adam and Eve and ribs and stuff

I think God is err......God

I am sure that God doesnt need sexual reproductive organs because God can do a whole lot of stuff with dust and bits of granite and a few leaves and a tree stump.......or whatever

So I dont think God has a gender, God is above all that

JMO

All you need it love ... love ... love is all you need ...

OK ... is love different to god ? and have you experienced anything better than love ?

(and i don't mean 'that' kind of love) ...

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And now folks - a debate upon the sexuality of God - man, woman or bi?

Pansexual. All things to all lovers of course.

As for God's gender, hermaphrodite I would imagine.

Originally posted by max
And which category, exactly, does the cow fall into?

When I posted the above, I was being facetious. But Phan’s reply epitomizes Western Man’s egoistic approach to ‘God’ (Pansexual. All things to all lovers of course. As for God's gender, hermaphrodite I would imagine.)

As stated in Genesis: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’ (Gen. 1:27) King James Version

As Voltaire wrote: ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.’(Voltaire, 1694-1778 Epitres xcvi), as part of his argument for the existence of God. Bakunin, the anarchist and political theorist, turned this argument on its head: ‘If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.’ (Mikhail A. Bakunin, 1814-1876)

I prefer Saint Augustine’s statement on God: ‘We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is.’ – Which brings to mind what I stated earlier in this thread: ‘Neti, Neti’ - Not this, Not that - Sanskrit words expressing the inexpressible - the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Transcendental, the Divine, God, Tao …

Getting back to the topic of this thread: Ban Religion, one of the main arguments in support of this relates to the harm that has been done in the name of religion(s) – and particularly the Western Church.

Over the centuries, a justification for this has been that terrible verse in Genesis: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ (Gen. 1:26) King James Version

On a lighter note, here are a few aphorisms on ‘God’:

I think Jamie would like this: ‘The best way to know God is to love many things.’ (Vincent van Gogh)

‘I sometimes think that God, in creating man, overestimated His ability.’ (Oscar Wilde)

‘It's God - I'd have known Him by Blake's picture anywhere.’ (Robert Frost)

I like that neti neti thing too CW !!

I once had the idea that sin ... the only real sin ... is to consider yourself in anyway seperate from 'god'.

To see 'god' in everything ... flowers ... grass ... the wind ... your own thoughts ... birds ... stones ... dog poo ... in everything.

Not to intellectualise or pontificate ... but just simply to love ... indiscriminately and with as much wisdom and understanding as a new born babe.

Is it really you loving the things that you percieve ??

Or is 'god' loving 'god' ??

I just don't know ...

Originally posted by JamieW
[B]I like that neti neti thing too CW !!

I once had the idea that sin ... the only real sin ... is to consider yourself in anyway seperate from 'god'.

To see 'god' in everything ... flowers ... grass ... the wind ... your own thoughts ... birds ... stones ... dog poo ... in everything.


Your first precept, Jamie, is Vedantic in concept, and the idea is found in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Your second, brings to mind William Blake's poem:

To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour.

I like what Percy Brysshe Shelley wrote about Man and his relationship with God:

The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly;
Life, like a dome of many-colour'd glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity, (Shelley, Adonais LII)

Originally posted by Carlwarker
[B]Your first precept, Jamie, is Vedantic in concept, and the idea is found in the Bhagavad-Gita.


Further to this:

This is part of what Aldous Huxley wrote in his foreward to the Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood translation of the Bhagavad-Gita:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness the world of things and animals and men and even gods is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be nonexistent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark. of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: man's life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Hey, Zamo, I bet you didn't anticipate all this tosh when you started this thread.

If only all these philosphers and poets hadn't wasted their energy on religious claptrap and concentrated more on achieving world peace and a cure for the common cold. Imagine that.

And rob Kleenex of it's profits - sniff. sniff ...

Originally posted by back2basics
Organised religion has just become a slush fund for the court cases and out of court settlements of Paedophiles. It has been for decades. In the US alone $1 Billion of contributions for the so called 'moral minority' has been used to keep Paedophiles out of court. That $1 Billion was BEFORE the current media activity.


Where did you get the information? I have just railed against journalists in another thread, but remember that most, if not all, press articles are written from a view point, and the truth is not allowed to ruin a good story.

I have to smile whenever I see a "We should ban the ...".
It usually means the banning of something in which 'I' have no interest. Let's really sort everything out properly, once and for all.

My "ban" list: all those who flaunt their cars, all those who drive too fast, all those who drive too slow, all those who vote Conservative, all those who don't vote, all those with no taste buds who eat garlic, all those who do anything to hurt anyone, all those with no respect for anyone else's views or property, all those who refuse to give me, a smoker, just a tiny bit of space in which to indulge my habit(which I don't resort to crime to pay for), and all those who disagree with my views.:evil: :evil:

Originally posted by BigD
Where did you get the information? I have just railed against journalists in another thread, but remember that most, if not all, press articles are written from a view point, and the truth is not allowed to ruin a good story.

I have to smile whenever I see a "We should ban the ...".
It usually means the banning of something in which 'I' have no interest. Let's really sort everything out properly, once and for all.

My "ban" list: all those who flaunt their cars, all those who drive too fast, all those who drive too slow, all those who vote Conservative, all those who don't vote, all those with no taste buds who eat garlic, all those who do anything to hurt anyone, all those with no respect for anyone else's views or property, all those who refuse to give me, a smoker, just a tiny bit of space in which to indulge my habit(which I don't resort to crime to pay for), and all those who disagree with my views.:evil: :evil:

I didn't realise that intolerance was a deportable crime. Ah well, you live and learn.

PS Agree with quite a lot of that actually. :D