Is religion a clear and present danger?

[Albertoo]

Boko Haram, ISIS, Chinese western province, Al Qaeda, Chechnya, regional problems?

But Paris, then Copenhagen? Over freedom of speech? Freedom of cartoons?

Yes, terrorists are extremists, and a majority of muslims are peace loving individuals.

But extremists are enabled by the majority which agrees the 'Holy" Book can't be amended.


Is it time -for peace sake- to realize religions are not sacred?


The cartoonist and the drawing the Copenhagen shooter was trying to suppress:

[TexasProgresive]

1. If that give some sort of comfort - believe it.

Take your magic wand and eliminate all religions and some people will still commit heinous acts-they will just rationalize their actions in new and inventive ways. Such is the nature of the beast that is us. One day we may evolve past this but I don't see it coming soon.

[Albertoo]

4. true. But nationalism and religion are the main culprits.

Now that Communism is dead.

[TexasProgresive]

5. There you go.

family "honor", tribalism, nationalism, greed, desire for power over others - this list can go on and on. Violent acts on the part of religion is usually tied to one or more of the above. It is just an excuse to kill and maim.

So do you have a solution for curing humanity's penchant for killing each other? How would you go about it other than laying the blame at the feet of religion?

[RKP5637]

51. Quite true! There would be a substitute and just as bad or worse IMO. Humans might

be advancing technologically, but sociologically there's a long way to go.

[Panich52]

2. Religions have only ever been sacred to their followers

Blasphemy laws are only passed when a country has a dominant, influential religion. They go farther than 'hate speech' restrictions.

It's always puzzled me that believers are so afraid of hearing disparaging remarks about their religious system -- is their deity so frail?

BTW, this topic will prob get booted from Gen Disc...

[Albertoo]

3. Topic booted? Clear & present dangers would be swept under the rug.

BTW, this topic will prob get booted from Gen Disc...

That would be frightening.

[TexasProgresive]

6. From: "What can and cannot be posted in the General Discussion forum"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978
Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

[Albertoo]

7. Is it wrong to question rules?

Nowadays, religion(s) should be a general discussion.

IMHO.

[TexasProgresive]

11. Take that up with the forum hosts

It's not for you to decide what goes where. The rules are there for a reason. If you don't like them you might try Discussionist or Fr**R******c
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

[haikugal]

30. Wow....

Love it or leave it....where have I heard that before?

[misternormal]

54. Possibly True...

Hoever the ability to say and do pretty much as we like was one of the most obvious
by products of our "Revolution" against British Rule. And you can bet your Bonnie
Biscuits that they questioned a whole lot of rules. That's why we live in a society that
is supposed to look at, and question rules from time to time, revising them, and shaping
them to what is happening in the present.

There... 'nuff said.

[Panich52]

15. I was just thinking of 'no religion' guidelines. Booted may be too strong. How abt 'transferred'?

[madokie]

8. I'm a lot happier since I lost mine

no internal conflicts to worry with. Oh, I'm still the same person, I get up and work around the house, sometimes cook. Sometimes just lay around an listen to music. I still respect others right to be themselves as long as they leave me alone, providing I'm not doing something that annoys them and on and on.
I was born into religion and was baptized before I got out of grade school but at about the ripe young age of 14 I realized that religion was the root of all evil and have been a much happier person ever since. I say to each his/her own but for me leave me out of the religious bull.

[RKP5637]

56. Same here! Most of what I see in religion is bigotry and hatred toward others. Religion is just

about politics, domination and persecution, and generally blind adherence to beliefs. It's a club, and often a club of hatred.

[meow2u3]

9. Violent extremism is a clear and present danger

Violent extremists often use religion as an excuse, or even a justification, to maim and kill anyone who doesn't kowtow to their twisted idea of religion.

[Trillo]

10. Does it say, "ISLAM means human and animal rights"?

Am I reading the cartoon correctly?
Last time I checked, humans are animals, humans are in the scientific Kingdom: Animalia

So, they took offense at the "ISLAM" portion of the phrase?

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

76. no the issue was more likely the profit's head on the sheep

[jwirr]

12. In this instance I would have to answer no. But if you had said are religious fanatics dangerous I

would answer yes.

[CJCRANE]

13. It's more about the funding and propagation of the fundie ideology.

Our superiors are content to let that continue (or at least not make an all out effort to tackle it) so this will be with us for a while.

In the meantime we'll require more surveillance and more intervention in the ME which will inspire more to take up the extreme ideology, which will require more surveillance and more intervention in response...

[el_bryanto]

14. So what would you say to religious DUers? nt

[hifiguy]

17. I would respectfully suggest that they read

Victor Stenger's "God - The Failed Hypothesis" which refutes all of the reasons people usually offer for why they believe in the supernatural, including why there is "something" and not "nothing" and how this does not contradict what is known about physics.

[el_bryanto]

18. You aren't the writer of the OP - but I gather that if you want to do things respectfully

You don't want to treat religion as a clear and present danger?

Bryant

[hifiguy]

19. I think religion is a clear and present danger

but I believe in convincing people of the truth with logic if at all possible.

[el_bryanto]

21. And if a believe reads that book and says "Well I'm unconvinced - I continue to have faith in God."

What do you recommend in that case?

[Albertoo]

25. People deserve respect, not ideologies

Ideologies of all kinds and shapes are debated, critiqued.

Religions are ideologies which can be debated, critiqued.

Religions do not deserve more respect than any other ideologies.

Especially when Holy Books are more violent than Mein Kampf.

[el_bryanto]

48. Where might one seek help for delusions?

And what if a religious DUer, like me for example, says "I don't choose to accept your patronizing bulllshit, but I'm gong to continue living and believing as I choose to."

Bryant

[misternormal]

57. What I would say is:

I will continue to believe as I do, and you may believe as you do. If we can't come to terms with that,
Then have a nice life, and I hope you end up where you think you will.

Peace be with you.

[el_bryanto]

58. Nods - that's the best response I would think. nt

[hifiguy]

16. It is.

As are nationalism and greed. As a species we must leave them behind or we will exterminate ourselves in their names.

[former9thward]

20. I would rather leave Marxists behind.

No offence. Just those who have killed hundreds of millions in their name.

[onenote]

22. Since this is a board that focuses on politics

I'm curious whether you think it will help the Democratic Party to tell three of its most important constituencies -- African-Americans, Latinos, and Jews--that their religious beliefs are (and by extension make them) a "clear and present danger"?

[el_bryanto]

24. Hard to argue with that logic; but then again many of the anti-theists

have a hard time conceptualizing of a person who is both liberal/leftist and a believer. They either assume they are faking their belief (as they often do about MLK) or they assume they aren't really liberal/leftist (as they usually do towards DU Believers).

Bryant

[guillaumeb]

55. thank you for that point.

My beliefs are what inspire me to keep struggling. Have been a union member for 40 years, a union representative for 34 years, a socialist for longer. I feel that my actions and my political beliefs are fully consistent with my beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

75. Do you just make this up as you go along?

"many of the anti-theists have a hard time conceptualizing of a person who is both liberal/leftist and a believer."

Just where do you get this from? You have enagaged many non-believers in the Religion Group and talked about this exact topic, and been shown that what you posted simply isn't true.

"They either assume they are faking their belief (as they often do about MLK) or they assume they aren't really liberal/leftist (as they usually do towards DU Believers)."

There's only one person making assumptions here. And childish one's at that.

[el_bryanto]

90. I am talking about Anti-theists not non-believers.

The two groups aren't equivalent despite your and others attempts to conflate them. And I'd say I am 100% accurate. Don't worry - everybody has blind spots.

And really you've never seen the argument that MLK wasn't a real believer? Come on.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

93. So, just making it up.

Got it.

[Albertoo]

27. 'Respect' for religions actually helps Republicans.

The assumption religions should not be critiqued is signing a blank check to Republicans.

Any mocking of Bachmann's beliefs in a rapture would be silenced.

The fact Palin would love to ban abortion would even make sense.

There must be a verse in the Bible that can be made to support her position.

[onenote]

31. One of the less intelligent things I seen posted here in a while.

Respect for people helps Democrats. Period.

BTW, you apparently are unaware that over 80 percent of the African-American population believes in the existence of God and believes in miracles and in angels and demons? (Pew Research poll). I haven't seen specific numbers about a belief in the rapture, but its probably safe to say that it is pretty high among African Americans. You think that mocking African-American church-goers is a good idea? You think that alienating African-American church leaders is a good idea?

It is possible to mock Bachmann's policy choices without bringing religion into it.

[Jamaal510]

78. Agreed, and

speaking of Bachmann, it would be absurd to even include her in the same conversation as other Christians like Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Barber of North Carolina. Both sides have fought for totally different agendas--one of which has been shown countless times to be the antithesis to Jesus's teachings. All Bachmann has done is misinterpret her religion to her political advantage. To people like her, religion is merely a tool.

[Albertoo]

80. I don't think much of your answer either

While you graciously write

One of the less intelligent things I seen posted here in a while.

you follow up by a perfect non sequitur.

Respect for people helps Democrats. Period.

My OP states very clearly that my point is about religion in general,
and, current events commanding, about Islam in particular. As ideologies.

When an ideology makes people think blasphemers should be killed (Paris, Copenhagen),
I dare venture the humble point that that ideology has a pproblem.

If one must respect all ideologies because not doing so would 'disrespect' their followers,
then, by that token, one should also respect nazism.

[onenote]

83. apparently you are under the misimpression that Nazism is a religion

Simple logical concept for you:

A religion may be an ideology. But not all ideologies are religions.

The comment you made in this subthread "respect for religion actually helps Republicans" is nonsense. If you really believe that as a political strategy it would be helpful to Democrats to publicly disrespect "religion" one can only pray (irony) that you never get involved in campaign strategy for any Democratic candidate.

[Albertoo]

84. Please, read and understand what I post before answering

I wrote

If one must respect all ideologies because not doing so would 'disrespect' their followers,
then, by that token, one should also respect nazism.

you write

apparently you are under the misimpression that Nazism is a religion

Simple logical concept for you: your straw man tactics do not interest me.

[onenote]

92. The tactic of calling something a straw man

when you don't want to respond to the point -- namely that your statement that "respecting religion helps Republicans" is nonsense -- is a useful straw man on your part.

We're done.

[Albertoo]

95. Please learn what a straw man argument tactic is.

You obviously do not know/understand what it refers to.

We're done.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. "The assumption religions should not be critiqued..."

Clear and present dangers aren't dealt with by critique, they're eliminated.

Is religion a thing to be debated or is it a clear and present danger? I can't help but think you've swerved into hyperbole in your OP.

[Albertoo]

79. Well, defense from the dangers of religion is politics now

Religion now is a danger. Currently, Islam is now one (9/11, 7/7, Paris, Copenhagen)

To brush the question aside is to have an absence of policies in this regard.

[William769]

23. Religion isn't, Religious fanatics are.

[Albertoo]

28. Religions breed fanaticism.

Who knows, without a secular Constitution, witch burning might still be OK?

[LanternWaste]

34. Every imaginary construct breeds fanaticism.

Politics breed fanaticism. Nations breed fanaticism. Philosophies breed fanaticism. Economics breed fanaticism. Every imaginary construct breeds fanaticism.

Unless one holds one fanatic to a different standard than another fanatic, consistency would dictate that politics, philosophy, economics and nationalism, in and of themselves, are also clear and present dangers...

[Orrex]

41. Not true

Unless one holds one fanatic to a different standard than another fanatic...

It is entirely reasonable to hold different fanatics to different standards based, among other things, on their ability and opportunity to subjugate others.

And, since fanatics differ widely in their potential to inflict harm or coercion, it's appropriate to tailor one's response to match different fanatacisms as they're addressed.

For instance, a fanatical nationalist with a daddy-fueled revenge fantasy fueled by the potential for oil profits is substantially more dangerous than a fanatical book organizer working in the basement of the stacks at the local library.

In short. you're painting with too broad a brush, and you over-simplify the real and particular dangers that fanaticism can represent.


Quick--call someone a half-wit and pretend that you've proven your point!

[onenote]

43. So you believe there is a link between the Constitution and the end of witch burning.

Let's analyze that idea.

First, we'll start with the fact, apparently unknown to you, that witches weren't burned in the colonies. During a period of time in the mid/late 17th Century, around 3 dozen people were hung for being witches (one was kileed by being crushed).

Second, two-thirds of the executions took place over a period of around a year and a half in 1692-93 in what has been fairly described as an incident of mass hysteria. No one was executed after 1693, which is over 90 years before the Constitution was drafted.

Third, there was in fairly short order a great deal of remorse about the witch trials and executions. By 1711, legislation reversing the convictions and authorizing compensation for the families of those executed was enacted.

Fourth, trials and executions of witches (including some witch burnings) also took place in other countries. That practice generally ceased by the mid-17th Century, often at the urging of clergy. Those countries, it should go without saying, aren't governed by a constitution comparable the US Constitution.


Under the circumstances, it's pretty clear that the link you see between the US Constitution and the cessation of witch burning (which didn't actually occur) doesn't stand up to rational analysis.

Like your OP.

[cleanhippie]

40. Define fanatic.

Would that include those that believe absurd things, like people coming back to life?

Definition of FANATIC
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

Sounds pretty fanatical to me.

[el_bryanto]

49. So any Christian who believes in the resurrection is a fanatic

by your definition? That's a pretty wide swath.

Bryant

[mike_c]

61. please explain how an uncritical belief in the reanimation of dead bodies isn't "fanatical..."

I believe that experiment has been performed many billions of times, and no unambiguously dead body has ever spontaneously reanimated, except in imagination and very unlikely anecdote. Just how many thoroughly dead corpses does it take to lay the myth of reanimation to rest? A billion? Ten billion? A trillion? That many and more have died and stayed dead, so yes, I think belief in resurrection is pretty fanatical. If not, how many more really dead bodies staying dead will it take?

[el_bryanto]

62. Can a belief really be fanatical if it's shared by ~ 77% of Americans?

As of 2012 that was the percentage of self described Christians in the United States. Of course some percentage of those might not actually believe in the resurrection.

Bryant

[mike_c]

64. the number of people who share a belief has no bearing at all...

...on its truth or falsehood. But wholesale, uncritical acceptance of any belief in the face of overwhelming real evidence to the contrary is always "fanatical."

[el_bryanto]

65. Nods - we should get you a speech at the Democratic Convention

It seems, though, that you are under the mistaken impression that Christians believe that most people rise from their graves after three days - that's not accurate as it turns out.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

73. That's just sad.

You just had to go and make it personal.


You just had to be insulting.


You just had to intentionally mischaracterize.


Because you had nothing else left.


And that's just sad.

[el_bryanto]

91. You are right that there is something sad about this discussion.

But I feel fine.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

94. Oh, I'm sure you do.

Now.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. You aren't being fair in the restatement of the hypothesis.

First, it's resurrection, not reanimation.

Second, Jesus was supposed to be God the Son, the Creator of all Life and his resurrection is supposed to have been the overtaking of death. H. P Lovecraft posited, of sorts, what it would mean if "e'en Death may die" but that's merely transposing the proposition, "What if Life Itself were to die?" Is ours a dualist existence where Life and Death are equal in force and necessity? Does one hold primacy over the other? If so, which one?

Third, where in the NT was it stated that the resurrection of others was to be observed elsewhere within the word as it now stands? You're saying, "It has happened again so the NT is bunk." Except the NT hasn't said it happened again. The NT says, "we saw it happen once, we are promised it shall be so with us in some future time."

Fourth, you also stake your argument on the "if it ain't seen, it ain't happened" position. How much of science would be deemed fanatical if that particular standard were universally held? Good-bye theoretical physics, you were fun while you lasted.

[Yorktown]

89. Jesus was supposed to be God the Son?

It's not even clear the Gospels meant it that way.

At the time, 'son of God' also meant a human. Period.

Anyway, exegesis of totally unsourced and unreliable texts isn't fruitful.

[shenmue]

26. Yeah, we're all the same

Want some paint to go with your broad brush?

[Albertoo]

29. Religions display different degrees of dangerosity

But, as of today:
• Islam: probably the most virulent
• Judaism: religiously motivated settlements fanning regional fire
• Catholics: campaigns in Africa against vaccinations or condoms
• Hinduism: on aggressive defensive mode
• Buddhism: cf Burma, Sri Lanka

The thin brush says all is not well with religion.
And it's not politically motivared, it's that religions are political platforms.

[Arugula Latte]

50. I'd add:

Evangelical Protestants -- Spreading anti-gay hate, including calling for the death penalty for homosexuality, in Africa; stoking and spreading the extreme anti-gay movement in Russia.

[RKP5637]

70. Yep, they are hateful beings, spreading hatred for no valid reason. n/t

[erstickendarauf]

32. ALL Religions have violent extremists within their ranks

even in America, pretty unfair and disingenuous to limit it to a few sects of one religion.

[HereSince1628]

36. Thanks for this, an appeal to shared fallibility of humanity

I get that...

but, in addressing the problem of too narrow a focus , you created an excellent example of the -argumentum ad populum- fallacy, everybody is doing it aka 'the bandwagon'.

And you've used it in a common form, to diffuse the criticism of a particular thing by suggesting that thing is a universal property.

Getting around this fallacy is often possible by conditioning the statement so it isn't a universal...

[cordelia]

33. No

[Ykcutnek]

35. My philosophy is that everything is a danger in excess. EOT

[cleanhippie]

37. The clear and present danger is the coddling of those that choose faith over reason.

The moment we stop doing that is the moment the we begin to prevail over that danger.

[onenote]

46. So what is your solution?

Do you propose to lead a squadron of like-minded DUers into African-American churches to tell them that they shouldn't be "coddled" anymore? Do you suggest having a "no coddling" of religion plank added to the Democratic Party platform?

How do you think that would work out?

[cleanhippie]

72. I thought I was clear in my implication.

But leading anyone anywhere isn't it, so perhaps to some, inference isn't their strong suit.


I'd recommend starting with the definition of coddle, then try work it out from there.

[Orrex]

38. Religious belief demands belief in magical thinking...

which is ultimately incompatible with reason.

Religion doesn't necessarily breed extremism, but it can train its believers to accept harmful claims put forth without real evidence to back them up.

[CJCRANE]

39. I often feel as if people have amnesia of the 20th century

and have forgotten all the various left wing and right wing political movements that ravaged the world during that time.

Not to mention that radical islam was created in the 80s specifically to fight communism and socialism.

Whatever we create to fight the Isis freaks, we'll probably be fighting that in a few years' time and forgotten all about where it came from.

[Augustus]

44. Religion is willful ignorance

It is the utmost scourge of human kind, and is going to lead to our complete destruction if we continue on this dangerous path.

[onenote]

47. And yet, despite religion of one sort or another having been part of life

for time immemorial, it hasn't yet led to "our complete destruction."

[RKP5637]

52. Yes IMO! n/t

[onenote]

53. So what do you propose doing about it

A "clear and present danger" isn't something to be ignored. So what is your proposal for driving religion from America (and the world).

[RKP5637]

59. It's an observation. Religion will never be gone, but recognition for what it often is

IMO is important. Religion is another form of politics. Far too many wear blinders, choosing not to recognize what their religion is about. IMO the internet, for one example, exposes many to perhaps do introspection.

[Brigid]

60. Yeah, my garden-variety Methodist church is a real threat.

Running a soup kitchen, hosting a farmer's market in the summer, holding Bible studies, youth group meetings, and all.

[H2O Man]

63. Is foolishness?

[seveneyes]

66. Present danger yes. Not clear enough to some

Too many people default to using Gods and Devils to define the good and bad things that exist when they can't comprehend the reality of some situations.

[Albertoo]

86. And a danger visibly not clear enough to some bystanders

as clearly illustrated by some answers to this thread.

[Yo_Mama]

67. No. n/t

[uppityperson]

68. No. Fundamentalism, extremism, prejudging, bigotry, those are the dangers.

[Jenoch]

69. Not always.

[Jamastiene]

71. It is the deranged minds that twist what religions say to justify their own atrocities.

It is the depravity of those human minds who are grasping at any excuse to commit acts of terrorism/violence that is the clear and present danger.

[cleanhippie]

74. Is it deranged minds that twist religion?

Or is it religion that twists deranged minds?



I think the stronger argument rests with the latter.

[Jamaal510]

77. Wouldn't one's mind

already be twisted if they happened to be deranged, or am I misunderstanding something? Because the definition of "deranged" is to be insane.

[el_bryanto]

96. Yep - that's the argument - Religion makes people insane.

I guess that's why it's a clear and present danger.

Bryant

[Albertoo]

81. It is the TEXTS of the Torah and Quran that command killings

Stonings and beheadings being the preferred methods recommanded by the books.

[treestar]

82. If it is a danger, then I suppose something must be

done to put it down, no? Should we attack the religious people before they cause damage?

[Albertoo]

85. Don't attack people, but de-fang ideologies.

One security threat is the literalist reading of sacred text; the Quran in recent news.

Some think tanks like Quillian offer to offer counter-narratives to the literalist one.

Or, to re-word your sentence, we should attack radical ideologies before they cause damage.

[B Calm]

87. Yes, especially if you happen to be an abortion doctor.

[Orsino]

97. A lone psychotic or a mob that can be cajoled or bullied into professing a belief in the invisible...

...may become a tool of the unscrupulous. That is the entirety of the danger.

[Albertoo]

98. ++

A lone psychotic or a mob that can be cajoled or bullied into professing a belief in the invisible..may become a tool of the unscrupulous. That is the entirety of the danger.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca