Ban Religion

[back2basics 10]

Originally posted by Zamo

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

 

Amen

[Jamie 10]

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

 

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

[Zamo 10]

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?

[back2basics 10]

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).

[Phanerothyme 12]

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.

[Phanerothyme 12]

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.

[back2basics 10]

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!

[Jamie 10]

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 ...

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by back2basics

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

[back2basics 10]

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.

[Belle 10]

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.

[Sidla 10]

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.