Few were actually killed. More of that idealism and moralism, I see. She doesn't have a point, besides painting me and people who think like me as "evil" haters of "liberty".
He wasn't talking about the russian orthodox chruch (or even the era when the russian orthodox church started to climb out of the heavy persecution of communism)
It seems to me that Bells' point was obvious: 1. You can't ban religion because religion is personal. 2. Atheism should never ever be forced upon a populace under threat of incarceration, torture and death. Why do you think that something needs to be done with religion? If something needs to be done, then what should be done? Can that thing ever be accomplished outside an atheist's idealistic dreams, in the real world? Who would be in the position to potentially do it? And assuming simply for the sake of argument that this thing can conceivably be done and that there are entities out there who possess the necessary power to do it, should it be done? In case MY position isn't clear, let me say precisely what it is: 1. It's very unlikely that religion can be banned. 2. The attempt to ban religion would require a totalitarian power. 3. The principle of individual rights, freedoms and liberties, to say nothing of the principle of popular soverignty, stand in direct opposition to any sort of schemes in which self-appointed elites try to control the rest of the population's thoughts from on high. 4. The proposed-cure (creating the sort of power that's in a position to ban religion) appears to me to be incomparably worse than a supposed-disease, a disease that consists of people possessing the freedom and the liberty to think their own thoughts and to heed their own consciences. 5. I flatly and unequivocably oppose any suggestion that atheism be made mandatory and that it be enforced by state power.
There is no question that religion is a corrosive force in society, but banning the practice of religion is not the answer. For one, it wouldn't work. Prohibition never does, as evidenced by the astounding failure that is our War on Drugs, and alcohol prohibition in the last century. There are larger problems with this premise, obviously, but those who ask the question clearly don't value free expression and are not likely to be swayed by talk of Constitutional ideals. So let it simply be said that there is no mechanism by which the prohibition of religion would be effective. The answer you're looking for is to not give it special treatment. For example, France has banned the wearing of the burqa. The French government sees this practice for what it is and has decided that there is no place for such oppression in their country. Various federal courts in the US have struck down the teaching of ID in public schools (as well as "the teaching of the controversy") because they can see ID is simply attempting to undermine legitimate science and promote a Christian creation myth. So long as governments are willing to take a stand against religion when it begins to clash with law and the values of secular society, there's no need to worry. It's only when these religions begin to make demands and have them met (such as the institution of Sharia law in Muslim neighborhoods) that we need to worry. And even then, the answer won't be to prohibit the practice of religion, only to correct the previous mistakes.
What are you talking about? They are not "self-appointed." The atheists are merely stating the truth, and the truth is plain to see for everyone who is merely willing to look. Or isn't that so? Why? Truth should come over happiness, no? Many atheists will tell that one of the reasons they are atheists is that they value truth over happiness. And if human happiness doesn't matter, why not use any force imaginable to convert people to the truth?
I think it would be that many atheists value truth over how they feel (not just happiness). That doesn't mean they don't value how they feel, it means that if truth and how they feel butt heads, truth is going to win.
What does this have to do with an attempt to control people's thoughts? Good so far... And boom goes the dynamite. Seriously, how could you possibly reach that conclusion based on the previous two sentences? "Atheists value truth over happiness; therefore happiness doesn't matter and truth should be forced upon people at all cost?" How the hell did you come to that end? Since there's no possible way you'll ever answer a question so direct, I'll go ahead and correct you now: Valuing truth over happiness does not mean that happiness is not important. It simply means that we won't dismiss a truth because it is uncomfortable. And nowhere in that maxim is the injunction to force truth upon others. In this case, you're confusing a specific value of an individual atheist with the mandates of organized religion. Remember, there is no such thing as an "Atheistic doctrine." Aside from a disbelief in the supernatural, there is nothing philosophically, politically, or otherwise to bind atheists together.
What does this have to do with an attempt to control people's thoughts? Good so far... And boom goes the dynamite. Seriously, how could you possibly reach that conclusion based on the previous two sentences? "Atheists value truth over happiness; therefore happiness doesn't matter and truth should be forced upon people at all cost?" How the hell did you come to that end? Since there's no possible way you'll ever answer a question so direct, I'll go ahead and correct you now: Valuing truth over happiness does not mean that happiness is not important. It simply means that we won't dismiss a truth because it is uncomfortable. And nowhere in that maxim is the injunction to force truth upon others. In this case, you're confusing a specific value of an individual atheist with the mandates of organized religion. Remember, there is no such thing as an "Atheistic doctrine." Aside from a disbelief in the supernatural, there is nothing philosophically, politically, or otherwise to bind atheists together.
I don't necessarily agree with that. (Sometimes religion is corrosive, sometimes it isn't. One could say the same about politics.) We can agree to disagree on this one I guess, for the purposes of this thread. I suspect that many of the people who supposedly don't value free expression would react pretty strongly if some power tried to dictate their beliefs and behaviors regarding things that they care strongly about. In other words, people typically perceive 'me controlling you' much more favorably than they see 'you controlling me'. It's just human nature. The American 'separation of church and state' principle is a good step in that direction. Emotionally, I supported the ban. I support France's traditional secular ideals. But as you suggest, that case can probably be made too. I don't have any objection to "teaching of the controversy", but not in science classes. Simply stated, it's not science. But discussing it might be perfectly appropriate for a social-studies class of some sort. There's no harm in alerting students to the existence of the controversy and to what the different sides are saying. Right, I strongly agree with you on that. Although the context of this thread has had me criticizing atheist schemes to stamp out religion, I have to say equally vehemently that I take an extremely dim view of would-be theocracies as well, and for precisely the same reasons. (Saudi Arabia actually has government religious police charged with enforcing Islamic religious law.) I'll say that the whole idea of God-on-high revealing a final and unchangeable social order for all of humanity is precisely the kind of totalitarian antithesis of individual liberty and free choice that I so strongly oppose.
If religion is sometimes corrosive, then it is corrosive. If a person sometimes kills other people, then he is a killer. We don't say he is sometimes a killer. He may also be charitable, and a devout father; it does not change the fact that he is a killer. Politics are also corrosive, which is why we fight to keep them out of every issue in which they are not required. The same should be true of religion--keep it where it belongs, and out of places where it can do real harm, such as politics and education. Of course. Thankfully, most of us understand that the only difference between the two is perspective, and fight to avoid allowing the situation to manifest itself. Anyway, the point I was making by eschewing arguments in favor of free expression is that at least in this context (the "I'm controlling you" one) they don't care, and won't be swayed by it. Their outlook appears to be entirely utilitarian, and as such the only argument they're likely to respond to is one that shows such a measure would be ineffective. The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in which this injunction is found was the inspiration for the Establishment Clause. I'd be more inclined to call it a "giant leap." The French government made their reasons clear: they believe the burqa to be a tool of oppression. Granted, gender equality is about as secular an ideal as there is, but I think even moderate Muslims would agree that forcing women to cover their faces is wrong. I agree, but probably not for the same reason you agree. In truth, it isn't a "controversy" in any real sense, no more than it is a controversy that White Supremacists consider African-Americans to be an inferior race while science can demonstrate that they are not. Even-handedness would be inappropriate here. What should be taught is the truth: ID is propaganda by a pseudoscientific offshoot of the Creationist movement, for the express purpose of undermining science and circumventing the Constitution of the United States of America. It would be misleading and irresponsible to present both sides as if they were of equal merit. Of course. Though I think it should be noted that there are no current atheist schemes to stamp out religion. One could even argue that there never have been, as Stalin himself could be viewed as something of a pantheist. (There are also those who believe Stalin believed himself to be--and was worshiped as--a god, but I see him as more of an idealized human, perhaps even a symbol, but not a deity.) Even someone like Dawkins or Harris, both of whom would love to see religion disappear altogether, envision a world in which education and enlightenment serve as the Weapons of (Sunday) Mass Destruction (see what I did there?), rather than prohibition. In other words, even the archest of arch-enemies of faith are not men who would force conversions at gunpoint.
Really? Just for Catholic clergy alone: In 1992, Monsignor Dias, the Papal Nuncio for Albania appointed by Pope John Paul II, said that of the three hundred Catholic priests present in Albania prior to the Communists coming to power, only thirty survived. Heaven knows what the figure would have been for the Muslim religious leaders, since Islam was (and is) the predominant religion of Albania. Hoxha effectively made believing in God and practicing a religion a criminal offense. He didn't just ban it. He criminialised it. And many many people were either tortured or killed for their religious beliefs. To carry on as if this is somehow desirable because in your mind, "few were actually killed", as though this somehow makes it all acceptable is quite pathetic. The sad part of criminalising religion is that the Albanians have lost a very large part of their culture as well over the decades. And they are now grappling, trying to find that part of it and that is tragic. Religious architecture and religious archives were destroyed. What Albanians now face is an influx of Arabic and African branches and practices of Islam, which is foreign to their own in many respects. How you can think this is somehow acceptable is beyond me. Then perhaps you should not portray yourself on this site as a hater of liberty by declaring Albania as a great example for establishing an atheist State, when we know that thousands were killed for merely believing in their deity of choice. Religion and whether to believe in a deity or not is a personal choice. It should never be sanctioned by the State and atheism and religion should also never be forced and sanctioned by the State.
How so? What are the actual effects of this corosion? That would be an ideal statement if everyone was in agreement with you, that, in and of itself, is a political ideaology, proving you can't isolate politics anymore than you can isolate religion. This means they aren't separate from the human being. So all corosion is caused by the mind of the human being, not by titles. Religion doesn't do harm, people do harm. jan.
Institutionalized terrorism, war, poverty, murder, gender and racial oppression, ignorance, etc.. Institutionalized terrorism, war, poverty, murder, gender and racial oppression, ignorance, etc.. Here you go again, changing the definitions of terms to suit your argument. Sorry, but attempting to keep politics out of certain issues is not a political ideology in and of itself. That would be like saying a lack of religion is a religion of itself. Which, come to think of it, you're very keen on saying, so it really isn't surprising that you'd be wrong about this, as well. I do agree that ultimately it all comes from human beings. Religion, after all, is a human invention, as are the gods the religions serve, and the mandates "passed down" by them. It's all human invention, so yes, it all comes from the mind of humans. But what makes religion dangerous is the institutionalization of these things. Think of it like a loaded gun; sure, the gun itself does not kill someone, that responsibility belongs to the person holding it. But the gun is not therefore a harmless object. Same goes for religion. In the right hands, even the most reactionary doctrine (think: Quran) can be effectively neutered. But in the wrong hands (and that doesn't necessarily mean in "evil" hands; it could simply be in ignorant hands) you end up with television panels discussing the proper way to beat one's wife. Both religion and people do harm. Religion can make otherwise decent people do very bad things.
Balerion, Nonsense. These things come about through the mind, and manifest themselves throughout different ideologies, the main one being politics. It depends on your definition of ''religion''. I see religion as an extention of politics, because it is a human affair, and you don't. So I see ''a lack of religion'' as a replacement for whay YOU regard as religion, simply because I don't believe it is possible to be without religion. Without God? Yes. We can in a sense be ''irreligious'', but that depends on what the standard of ''religion'' is within a society. Alot of religions are man-made, like the goo-to man text by the pope of the evolution theory, and evangelised by the priests of darwinism. Religions aren't man made anymore than a voting system is man made. While it may look like that on the surface, they are human endeavours, how to become politically, and spiritually successful. That's the point. :wtf: That's not religion. You are talking about polictics, using the someones personal idea of a scripture. Again, people are corrosive, not religion. Religion doesn't make them do it, their own mind does. jan.
Yeah, but that's what someone like Red Star wants. So you're actually making him froth in the loins. And all those people who threw off communism in the late 80's were all "anecdotes" but you're not! Right. I think you're making shit up. Why did your wonderful family leave then? Where are they now? Do you have the comparative statistics of preference? That's not a reason to ban religion. The state was a criminal under Stalin, so while "crime" was lower, people were getting slaughtered. So your comparative reasoning is to take the second most vile government in the world and say, "HEY, at least we ain't Nazis! Eh, Comrade!" How'd that work? In most cases. You're thinking too rationally now, Bells. ~String
NO he is not making shit up. Life in USSR, from my own experience was a much safer and happier place than it is as living in a capitalist society.
