Should Christians apologize for the Oslo killings?

[I_Know_Nothing]

I constantly hear conservatives complaining that Muslims in general condone terrorist attacks because they don't routinely publicly condemn them(which, as an aside, is just not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm) true (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969662,00.html))

One of my answers has always been, why should they feel the need to? Muslims I have known have no more connection with terrorists than American Protestant Christians have with the Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army). I don't think peaceful Christians should feel any need to apologize for them, or the IRA, or pedophile priests, or Breivik for that matter.

Now you have O'Reilly conveniently slicing Breivik away from the rest of Christianity by claiming he is not a Christian, yet I could not imagine him saying terrorists claiming to be Muslims are not true Muslims.

Conservatives always want to tack (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=538714) on (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2380524/posts) the adjective "Muslim" in front of a terrorist when it is a Muslim, but refuse to do the same with Breivik, a Christian.

So are you Christian? Do you feel the need to apologize for and/or condemn Breivik's actions? Do you apply the same logic to Muslims? If there is a difference, why?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I am agnostic by choice but raised Christian but I certainly see no reason why Christians should apologize for anything.

It is not the religion itself that provokes the violence. It is certain people who co-opt the religion and pervert it that should apologize. This is no different for Christians than it is for Muslims (or Jews or whatever).

When you see some Evangelical Christians spewing their bile and hatred that is your problem. While I personally do not care for organized religion of any sort those people have profoundly perverted their religion and turned it to something it was not meant to be.

A crappy analogy perhaps but a vehicle can be used to carry someone to the hospital and save them or it can be used to run people over. It is not the vehicle, it is the person driving it that matters.

[Der Trihs]

It is not the religion itself that provokes the violence. It is certain people who co-opt the religion and pervert it that should apologize.How is using Christianity (or Islam for that matter) to call for violence perverting it? "Go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful" has been official doctrine and practice more often than not for it. Christianity is a major religion in the first place because of its propensity toward extreme bloodthirstiness and ruthlessness; if anything the people trying to use it to promote peace and compassion are the ones trying to pervert it.

[Argent Towers]

If one person claiming to represent a religion does something bad, the rest of that religion shouldn't be under any obligation to apologize for what he did. It doesn't make sense.

All the religions of the world, except possibly for Catholicism, are highly fragmented and do not take their orders from one central leader. Thus, the different sects operate independently.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Apparently we should be apologizing to Christians for mentioning it when bad people are Christian (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/07/about-late-last-night-oreilly-and-colbert-disagree-sort-of-on-norway-massacre-video.html).

[colonial]

Should atheists apologize for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

[thelurkinghorror]

Apologize and condemn aren't remotely the same thing. Christians shouldn't have to do either, although the latter might be nice, in a touchy-feely do-nothing way.

[Der Trihs]

Should atheists apologize for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?No, because atheist isn't a synonym for communist. Now, if they'd been espousing the virtues of communism, that's another matter.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Atheism isn't a religion. But just in case: I'm awful sorry about all those dead people. Happy?

[Guinastasia]

Atheism isn't a religion. But just in case: I'm awful sorry about all those dead people. Happy?

No. No I'm not.













;)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh, that's alright. I'm not really sorry anyway.

[punch line loser]

of course not. if anything, those journalists who insist on positing a link between this attack and islam ought to write apologies of their own.

der trihs, while i claim no authority in biblical matters i would ask to see a quote from the canonical bible that resembles "go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful." christianity (not unique in this regard) was able to spread because it offered empowerment to the less powerful, e.g. "the meek will inherit the earth," and as for killing outsiders, well that not only conflicts directly with the teachings of jesus (see cecil's article on the good samaritan), but it's a pretty lousy way to win new converts, wouldn't you say? don't fall victim to the same prejudices that those who campaign against islam as a religion of hatred have. a sweeping generalization about "official doctrine" (as if such a thing for 'christianity' even exists) requires some pretty serious proof if you don't want to appear completely ignorant, and to say that people using it to promote peace are perverting it is not only baseless but incredibly offensive even to a non-religious person like me. 'enlightened' age my left foot

[Der Trihs]

der trihs, while i claim no authority in biblical matters i would ask to see a quote from the canonical bible that resembles "go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful." Did i say anything about the Bible? While I'm sure the Bible has some such quote I'm not going to bother searching because it's besides the point; I said Christianity, not "Bible".

christianity (not unique in this regard) was able to spread because it offered empowerment to the less powerful, e.g. "the meek will inherit the earth," and as for killing outsiders, well that not only conflicts directly with the teachings of jesus (see cecil's article on the good samaritan), but it's a pretty lousy way to win new converts, wouldn't you say?"Convert or we kill you" works quite well, and that's how Christianity spread itself, on a tide of blood and destruction across the world. Conversion by the sword, killing those who resisted, systematically destroying all other teachings. Book burnings and bloodshed are the founding principles of the Christian empire.

[devilsknew]

I don't know? Has the pope or any other religous authorities ever apologized for the crusades? As Breivik is supposedly a modern day "Crusader"...

I guess John Paul came as close as his dogma could allow some 900 years after the fact (http://www.opednews.com/boyne_070304_pope.htm) (better late than never.)

Will the Christian fundamentalists here in the U.S. take their responsibility for this useless war and their influence on Breivik's ideology? Somehow, I doubt it, because they are hypocrites and routinely shirk their responsibilities as fomenters of hate with religous authority as their cloak.

[Der Trihs]

Will the Christian fundamentalists here in the U.S. take their responsibility for this useless war and their influence on Breivik's ideology? Somehow, I doubt it, because they are hypocrites and routinely shirk their responsibilities as fomenters of hate with religous authority as their cloak.On the contrary; they are either denying that this "counts" as killings by a Christian, or trying o express support for Breivik without actually saying so. Lots of fake-conciliatory nonsense about how while they deplore his actions, under the situation it's understandable how he'd been pushed into doing something extreme, blahblahblah. Just like the abortion killings; crocodile tears while they make it clear they hope it happens again. It's the very sort of "Second Amendment Solution" the Right's been threatening, after all.

[Whack-a-Mole]

How is using Christianity (or Islam for that matter) to call for violence perverting it? "Go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful" has been official doctrine and practice more often than not for it. Christianity is a major religion in the first place because of its propensity toward extreme bloodthirstiness and ruthlessness; if anything the people trying to use it to promote peace and compassion are the ones trying to pervert it.

No question Christianity has had a violent past and certainly the Old Testament is filled with retribution style crud.

However, I was taught in Sunday School about the turn the other cheek schtick and love thy neighbor bit and so on.

For Christianity, at least, the New Testament trumps the Old Testament. The New Testament was about that hippie Jesus and his message of love.

What I am saying though is there is enough in the Bible for any loony to latch on to. I think Evangelical folks in the US are patently bad people who espouse terrible things in the name of the Bible. Conversely I have been to my mom's church and they are the epitome of an idealistic do-gooder church. They are not in to proselytizing. They are into community and a better world for people. If you want to learn about their religion great. If not no biggie...they are still happy to help.

I think it is obvious people can co-opt most anything to suit their purpose. An honest reading of modern Christianity would have it all about the "love thy neighbor" schtick and not, "kill the unbelievers".

All that said I am not fond of organized religion. I think it is more a force for evil than good overall in this world. But that is due more to power hungry humans using this powerful tool for their selfish ends. Nevertheless my mom who is a good person (and not just saying that cuz she is my ma) has no reason to apologize for the killings in Norway.

That makes no sense.

[Der Trihs]

No question Christianity has had a violent past and certainly the Old Testament is filled with retribution style crud.

However, I was taught in Sunday School about the turn the other cheek schtick and love thy neighbor bit and so on.Because the government has grown stronger and the Church weaker, to the point that if they told you to kill your neighbor for being in the wrong sect they and you would just end up in prison. So these days they softpedal the aggression, at least close to home. Doesn't keep them from thinking that bombing Muslims and sending missionaries is a great idea, though.

[I_Know_Nothing]

der trihs, while i claim no authority in biblical matters i would ask to see a quote from the canonical bible that resembles "go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful."

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." 1 Samuel 15:3(NSRV)

"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" Psalms 137:9(NSRV)

"Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34(NSRV)

[Whack-a-Mole]

Because the government has grown stronger and the Church weaker, to the point that if they told you to kill your neighbor for being in the wrong sect they and you would just end up in prison. So these days they softpedal the aggression, at least close to home. Doesn't keep them from thinking that bombing Muslims and sending missionaries is a great idea, though.

Yeah this happens.

It is the evil people seeking power or money who do this shit.

It is not intrinsic to the religion.

Answer me this:

When right-wing pundits excoriate Muslims as mad killers because they are Muslim do you agree? Do Muslims as a group or individuals need to apologize when someone who claims their beliefs kills others?

[Der Trihs]

Yeah this happens.

It is the evil people seeking power or money who do this shit.

It is not intrinsic to the religion.Yes, it is. A religion that is built on the idea that it is the only true path to salvation and that anyone who isn't a believer will go to hell forever positively demands literally limitless aggression, tyranny and brutality. It's about people doing what their religion clearly demands that they do.

Answer me this:

When right-wing pundits excoriate Muslims as mad killers because they are Muslim do you agree? Not really since they tend not to care if the person in quesition is actually a Muslim or actually a killer. Quite often it's just a code for "brown people" or "poor people". As for the actual violent Muslims, they are "mad killers"; but so are their Christian opposites. Each side is in the position of Nazis accusing Stalinists of brutality. Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, and there isn't a great deal to choose from between the two. In my eyes what we have here is a bunch of evil and crazy people calling each other evil and crazy.

Do Muslims as a group or individuals need to apologize when someone who claims their beliefs kills others?That depends if they are some of the ones pushing the particular variant of Islam the attack was committed for; Islam isn't at all unified. But I don't actually care that much if the Christians or Muslims who push violence apologize because I don't believe they are really sorry.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Not really since they tend not to care if the person in quesition is actually a Muslim or actually a killer. Quite often it's just a code for "brown people" or "poor people". As for the actual violent Muslims, they are "mad killers"; but so are their Christian opposites. Each side is in the position of Nazis accusing Stalinists of brutality. Islam is evil, Christianity is evil, and there isn't a great deal to choose from between the two. In my eyes what we have here is a bunch of evil and crazy people calling each other evil and crazy.

This is a dodge.

When you see a FOX News personality ranting about how Mosques should not be allowed to be built you are ok with that? When they support state laws that make Sharia law illegal you are ok with that? When they intimate that Muslims, via the previous examples and others, are violent and to be feared you are ok with that?

They are painting with a broad brush. Certainly it is child's play to find evil deeds committed in the name of any religion but I, personally, am not prepared to damn followers as a whole. I may think they are misguided but for the most part I do not think they are evil. I think some few are evil. I think some few pervert their religion for their own ends. I think it is sad that humans seem so susceptible to those people. However, I think the vast majority of people just want to get on with their life and don't want to be bothered. You leave them alone, they will leave you alone.

Yes some proselytize. Yes, some bomb themselves on others. Most however do not.


That depends if they are some of the ones pushing the particular variant of Islam the attack was committed for; Islam isn't at all unified. But I don't actually care that much if the Christians or Muslims who push violence apologize because I don't believe they are really sorry.

Another dodge.

Doubtless some take glee in what happened.

Would you say ALL followers of a religion need to apologize for one person's actions? (You can extend this to any group...religious or otherwise)

[Latro]

This is a dodge.


Another dodge.

Doubtless some take glee in what happened.

Would you say ALL followers of a religion need to apologize for one person's actions? (You can extend this to any group...religious or otherwise)

I would say you are the one dodging.

Let's replace it with 'Nazism was evil'.

Now, do you think ALL and every member of the Nazi party was Evil?
All Germans were evil?

Of course not. In the same way not ALL christians nor ALL muslims are evil.
But their religions certainly are.

[Grumman]

Should atheists apologize for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?
Only when you apologise because neither you nor Stalin were members of the South Carolina Knitting Club.

[FriarTed]

When it is shown that Breivik actually professed faith in God & Jesus rather than loyalty to some idea of "Christian European Civilization", I will take the whole "Breivik is a Christian terrorist" notion seriously. Abortion-clinic bombers & assassins, Christian Identity whackos, Moms who kill their babies so they don't grow up & go to Hell- yeah, and I do apologize for them. Breivik- nope, not a bit.

[Voyager]

Only when you apologise because neither you nor Stalin were members of the South Carolina Knitting Club.

I am so going to steal this response!

[Voyager]

Neither Christians or Muslims who have preached brotherhood need to to apologize for anything - thought the people who did this, and want to build the Islamic center in NY don't seem to be getting any credit for it.
The Christians who burn Korans might think about it. Of course, as often happens, if anyone does apologize it will be the set of people who really don't need to.

[Gorsnak]

When it is shown that Breivik actually professed faith in God & Jesus rather than loyalty to some idea of "Christian European Civilization", I will take the whole "Breivik is a Christian terrorist" notion seriously. Abortion-clinic bombers & assassins, Christian Identity whackos, Moms who kill their babies so they don't grow up & go to Hell- yeah, and I do apologize for them. Breivik- nope, not a bit.

Okay, I'm curious. In what way do you see Breivik as different from Christian Identity whackos and the like? Because he hasn't to your knowledge participated in the evangelical Christian ritual of the altar call?

I don't see why you should have to disavow any of the mentioned fringe radical members of your club, but I don't understand how Breivik wouldn't meet any bar that the others do.

[Peremensoe]

I've been rather disgusted by the number of prominent and semi-prominent voices that have tried to say, in essence:
1. He's not really a Christian, so don't blame Christians or look for anything from them, and at the same time,
2. Breivik is awful and all, but he does have a point. Tolerance of Muslims (etc.) is a big problem.

Should Christians apologize for the Oslo killings?

No, not apologize. Sympathy and support for the victims and their country is always nice, though. Those voices that find parallels between their thinking and the terrorist's might do well to take a step back and do some thinking about what they really believe.

Disavowing responsibility and endorsing the killer's cause in virtually the same breath is despicable.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I would say you are the one dodging.

Let's replace it with 'Nazism was evil'.

Now, do you think ALL and every member of the Nazi party was Evil?
All Germans were evil?

Of course not. In the same way not ALL christians nor ALL muslims are evil.
But their religions certainly are.

Is there a version of Nazism that taught kindness and acceptance?

When I was growing up and sent to Sunday School my church never taught hatred and such. Rather it taught decency and tolerance and acceptance.

Doubtless there are churches that teach their perverted version of the religion as well but all do not or even most.

[Polycarp]

How is using Christianity (or Islam for that matter) to call for violence perverting it? "Go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful" has been official doctrine and practice more often than not for it. Christianity is a major religion in the first place because of its propensity toward extreme bloodthirstiness and ruthlessness; if anything the people trying to use it to promote peace and compassion are the ones trying to pervert it.

Post proof or retract.

[Ají de Gallina]

Short answer: NO
Long answer: If there were hundreds of Christians churches with a significant part of the total active Christian population in attendance (at least 5%), that week in week out taught about killing people in the name of Christ, and the rest of us Christians said nothing, gave lame condemnation or taitly encouraged it, then; Hell yeah.

The thing is that this scenario is false.

[Ají de Gallina]

(Sorry for the double post)
Should atheists apologize for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

You didn't get the official SDMB memo, did you? It says that atheists cannot do anyhting wrong because of their atheism,ever.

I don't know? Has the pope or any other religous authorities ever apologized for the crusades? As Breivik is supposedly a modern day "Crusader"...

I guess John Paul came as close as his dogma could allow some 900 years after the fact (http://www.opednews.com/boyne_070304_pope.htm) (better late than never.)

Has any Arab/Turk/Muslim leader apologised for capturing the Holy Land or Constantinople? Twowrong don't make a right, but as you said John Paul apologised and that apology was received with contempt. It's no use apologising to people who only want you to humiliate yourself and will still hate you.

[colonial]

No, because atheist isn't a synonym for communist. Now, if they'd been espousing the virtues of communism, that's another matter.
The There is no reason for the analogy to be precise.

The LRE is a murderous subset of Christians, the Communists I listed
were a murderous subset of atheists.

[Grumman]

You didn't get the official SDMB memo, did you? It says that atheists cannot do anyhting wrong because of their atheism,ever.
There are an infinitely large number of irrational beliefs that an individual does not hold. It is no more reasonable to blame Stalin's murderous regime on his failure to believe in God than it is to blame it on his failure to believe his dog was psychic and would kill him with its brain if he didn't treat his subordinates nicely.

[colonial]

Only when you apologise because neither you nor Stalin were members of the South Carolina Knitting Club.
Oh, we gotta comic here.

Too bad my reaction time is so slow, I don't get it.

[Der Trihs]

Post proof or retract.<points at location>

I'm living on a continent that is majority Christian due to the mass slaughter of most of the original inhabitants and the forced conversion of many of the survivors, as well as the importation of slaves with in part the stated goal of converting them. If I was wrong, I wouldn't be here. Nor would all the Christians surrounding me.

Christianity got to where it is by climbing atop a mountain of the corpses of unbelievers. And then claiming to be all about peace and love.

[thelabdude]

When people do sick things in the name of Christ, Christians have the duty and right to speak out against it. I am sure I have condemned the Westboro Baptist Church's antics here. My God doesn't hate fags or any other sinners. While I can't see how the Bible can be interrupted to permit homosexuality, I also fail to see it condoning hateful acts against homosexuals. After all, it isn't the only sin. If a voice tells you to shoot an abortion doctor, better ask for some ID. I have found nowhere in the Bible that Jesus ever lifted up his hand against another man.

[Der Trihs]

While I can't see how the Bible can be interrupted to permit homosexuality, <snip>
"The Bible clearly state that homosexuals-"

<SLAP!>

"Shut up!"

[Bryan Ekers]

Christians, no.

Right-wing idiots... possibly.

[Ají de Gallina]

There are an infinitely large number of irrational beliefs that an individual does not hold. It is no more reasonable to blame Stalin's murderous regime on his failure to believe in God than it is to blame it on his failure to believe his dog was psychic and would kill him with its brain if he didn't treat his subordinates nicely.

I was trying to make a joke based on classic Der Thris saying that nothing bad an atheist does can be atributed to his atheism and that all the bad things (and none of the good) a Chrsitian does is because he's a Christian.

[Bryan Ekers]

I was trying to make a joke based on classic Der Thris saying that nothing bad an atheist does can be atributed to his atheism and that all the bad things (and none of the good) a Chrsitian does is because he's a Christian.

My sides are oddly not splitting.

[Der Trihs]

I was trying to make a joke based on classic Der Thris saying that nothing bad an atheist does can be atributed to his atheism and that all the bad things (and none of the good) a Chrsitian does is because he's a Christian.Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: You posted a "joke" that just happens to be something claimed by the believers in dead seriousness all the time.

[Hyperelastic]

I'm living on a continent that is majority Christian due to the mass slaughter of most of the original inhabitants and the forced conversion of many of the survivors, as well as the importation of slaves with in part the stated goal of converting them. If I was wrong, I wouldn't be here. Nor would all the Christians surrounding me.
.

This may be true of Mexico (including the territory it lost in the Mexican War), but is not close to being true for the rest of North America.

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: You posted a "joke" that just happens to be something claimed by the believers in dead seriousness all the time.

And you just proved his point. :rolleyes:

[Der Trihs]

And you just proved his point. :rolleyes:Nonsense. I just pointed out that attempts to equate atheism and communism are a standard way of smearing atheism.

[Magiver]

I constantly hear conservatives complaining that Muslims in general condone terrorist attacks because they don't routinely publicly condemn them(which, as an aside, is just not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm) true (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969662,00.html))

You constantly hear people (not just conservatives) complaining about Muslim driven attacks because of the current phenomenon of worldwide attacks in the name of Islam. It's not a couple of random events committed by a Muslim over the course of a year. It is a phenomenon consisting of many many events in the course of a year and they are committed specifically in the name of Islam.

One of my answers has always been, why should they feel the need to? Muslims I have known have no more connection with terrorists than American Protestant Christians have with the Lord's Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army). I don't think peaceful Christians should feel any need to apologize for them, or the IRA, or pedophile priests, or Breivik for that matter.

Of course there Muslims with no connection with terrorism. The majority do not. That doesn't belay the reality of a small percentage of Muslims making the front page (any percentage of a billion is a lot of people). We just stopped another Ft Hood shooter. It's a big problem.
Now you have O'Reilly conveniently slicing Breivik away from the rest of Christianity by claiming he is not a Christian, yet I could not imagine him saying terrorists claiming to be Muslims are not true Muslims. Committing a crime as a Muslim is different than specifically committing a crime in the name of Islam. The same applies to Christians or any other demographic group.

Conservatives always want to tack (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=538714) on (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2380524/posts) the adjective "Muslim" in front of a terrorist when it is a Muslim, but refuse to do the same with Breivik, a Christian.

So are you Christian? Do you feel the need to apologize for and/or condemn Breivik's actions? Do you apply the same logic to Muslims? If there is a difference, why? If Breivik did this in the name of Christianity and is part of a group that commits similar crimes on the same scale then we will absolutely be screaming bloody murder about radical Christians. Currently we are bitching about Fred Phelp's crusade against the gay community.

[Revenant Threshold]

You constantly hear people (not just conservatives) complaining about Muslim driven attacks because of the current phenomenon of worldwide attacks in the name of Islam. It's not a couple of random events committed by a Muslim over the course of a year. It is a phenomenon consisting of many many events in the course of a year and they are committed specifically in the name of Islam. I don't think you've really addressed I_K_N's point there. It was not about people complaining about attacks; it was about people complaining about the lack of Muslims routinely publically condemning them.

[Musicat]

No matter how twisted Breivik is, he didn't invoke the name of a deity or a religious concept during his killing spree.

[Magiver]

I don't think you've really addressed I_K_N's point there. It was not about people complaining about attacks; it was about people complaining about the lack of Muslims routinely publically condemning them. The debate on this board was always about the role of the religion and it's influence in the attacks.

[fumster]

No matter how twisted Breivik is, he didn't invoke the name of a deity or a religious concept during his killing spree.Wow, I'm impressed by the fact that you speak Norwegian and happy that you escaped alive from the island. I was misinformed and thought that http://www.spittoon.org/archives/10273:Breivik claims that he acted on behalf of an organisation called the Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici (PCCTS – the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) indicated that he was doing with religious motives.

[Ají de Gallina]

Nonsense. I just pointed out that attempts to equate atheism and communism are a standard way of smearing atheism.

Smearing atheism? Poor atheism, it's not going to sleep well tonight. Can you smear a bunch of chemicals residing in some people's brains, because ideas are nothing more than that. Soon, the Krebbs cycle will bring libel charges against me, sure.

I don't think anyone is equating them, simply pointing out that communism is an atheistic idea, held by atheists, and used against theists for being thesits.

Of course atheism doesn't make anyone do anything so talking about morality with a concept as devoid of morality as Thai food is stupid. It is clear that nothing bad has ever or will ever happen in the name of ahteism even if the person doing the bad thing clearly states it (no-true-Scotsmanness), so what's the point?

Your righteous indignation is so nice I feel guilty.

[Revenant Threshold]

The debate on this board was always about the role of the religion and it's influence in the attacks. That's true, but it's still not what I_K_N's point there was. Given that each of your points in response to your quotes of them were responses to those particular quotes, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to point out that that one wasn't.

[Bryan Ekers]

Smearing atheism? Poor atheism, it's not going to sleep well tonight. Can you smear a bunch of chemicals residing in some people's brains, because ideas are nothing more than that. Soon, the Krebbs cycle will bring libel charges against me, sure.

Disingenuity aside, can we assume you meant to say something negative about atheism and atheists? It's my understanding that oftentimes a critical remark about any particular "ism" is by implication extended to those who adhere to that particular "ism".




An an incidental note, I object to definitions that describe atheism as "a lack of belief in God", on the basis of accuracy. The literal meaning of the term is simply "without theism", which more reasonably applies to religions in general, not all of which incorporate a "God".

[devilsknew]

Has any Arab/Turk/Muslim leader apologised for capturing the Holy Land or Constantinople? Twowrong don't make a right, but as you said John Paul apologised and that apology was received with contempt. It's no use apologising to people who only want you to humiliate yourself and will still hate you.

Apology is not humiliation if it is genuine and contrite, on the contrary it is humble and opens new inroads and paradigms for both the wronged and the perpetrator. Some people might have received it with contempt, but I'm sure the gesture was genuine and might have acted as a powerful and mitigating message to the cultures warring in this era of the "New Crusade". In these thousands of years old conflicts, occaasionally ground must be given in a diplomatic way for any progress to be made... I mean, I heard a Jewish Symphony just played a Wagner Concert in Germany. That's some progress there and not at the pace of a millenial scale....

[Ají de Gallina]

Apology is not humiliation if it is genuine and contrite, on the contrary it is humble and opens new inroads and paradigms for both the wronged and the perpetrator. Some people might have received it with contempt, but I'm sure the gesture was genuine and might have acted as a powerful and mitigating message to the cultures warring in this era of the "New Crusade". In these thousands of years old conflicts, occaasionally ground must be given in a diplomatic way for any progress to be made... I mean, I heard a Jewish Symphony just played a Wagner Concert in Germany. That's some progress there and not at the pace of a millenial scale....

True.

[Der Trihs]

I don't think anyone is equating them, simply pointing out that communism is an atheistic idea, held by atheists, and used against theists for being thesits.It is not an "atheistic idea". And of course people are equating them, like I said that's the standard for believers; communism = atheism = atheists are all Stalinist mass murderers. It's so standard it's positively a cliche.

[Ají de Gallina]

It is not an "atheistic idea". And of course people are equating them, like I said that's the standard for believers; communism = atheism = atheists are all Stalinist mass murderers. It's so standard it's positively a cliche.

It is, sorry dude, it is.
A cliche? Really? I mean, outside from the voices in your head. At most the phrase is "when atheists got real power they started killing like crazy".
How many do you mean by "people"? 1? 2? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? 98%? 100%?

How difficult has it got to be for you to get out of your house knowing you'e surrounded by hordes ready to kill you at a moment's notice.

[I_Know_Nothing]

It is, sorry dude, it is.


Communism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with god. Is capitalism inherently theistic? atheistic?

Most communist countries were totalitarian states. They hated religion because they thought it was a threat. I'm an atheist(for all practical purposes) and I find Stalin and Mao just as despicable as any theist. Most atheists do.

Check out Christian communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

[woodstockbirdybird]

It is, sorry dude, it is.


No, it isn't. Communism has nothing to do with religious belief. It's an economic system. Most of us learned that in junior high.

[thelabdude]

Communism was a rather broad philosophy, starting with scientific socialism, which left out unproven beliefs such as Christianity. Socialism itself may or may not have a religious component.

[George Kaplin]

You didn't get the official SDMB memo, did you? It says that atheists cannot do anyhting wrong because of their atheism,ever.


Atheism is a word that shouldn't even exist. We don't have words for people who don't believe in astrology, or who don't believe that Elvis is still alive. Atheism is not a belief system, or even a view of the world. It is simply a lack of belief in Gods. It is impossible to do something wrong because of atheism, same as it's impossible to do something wrong because you don't put any stock in horoscopes.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Communism was a rather broad philosophy, starting with scientific socialism, which left out unproven beliefs such as Christianity. Socialism itself may or may not have a religious component.

Marx intentionally dismissed belief in God as a necessary component of his (economic) philosophy, and why shouldn't he? He also stated plainly that "atheism is far from Communism". It's atheistic in that theism is irrelevant to an economic model. The teachings of Christ, meanwhile, are pretty easily read as Communistic (or, at the very least, socialistic). Just like Christianity, the way Communism was practiced did not often square with how it was put forth as a philosophy.

[thelabdude]

Oh, but Marxism is only part of Communism.

[seanm]

Post proof or retract.

“That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” 2 Chronicles 15:13

[LonesomePolecat]

I have found nowhere in the Bible that Jesus ever lifted up his hand against another man. The moneychangers in the temple?

[Ají de Gallina]

Communism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with god. Is capitalism inherently theistic? atheistic?

Most communist countries were totalitarian states. They hated religion because they thought it was a threat. I'm an atheist(for all practical purposes) and I find Stalin and Mao just as despicable as any theist. Most atheists do.

Check out Christian communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism)

It is an economic model and has nothing to do with god.
Christian communism is like meat-eating vegetarianism.

No, it isn't. Communism has nothing to do with religious belief. It's an economic system. Most of us learned that in junior high.

Very good for you to have been to a good school instead of the crappy one I did. Well done.

Atheism is a word that shouldn't even exist. We don't have words for people who don't believe in astrology, or who don't believe that Elvis is still alive. Atheism is not a belief system, or even a view of the world. It is simply a lack of belief in Gods. It is impossible to do something wrong because of atheism, same as it's impossible to do something wrong because you don't put any stock in horoscopes.

I didn't invent the word.
I know of moral (lack of) implication of atheism, but that also means that atheists canoot use it as a moral backdrop or compare their moral outlook to toehr atheists.

The moneychangers in the temple?

It wasn't a hand, it was a kick-ass whip.

[LonesomePolecat]

And of course people are equating them, like I said that's the standard for believers; communism = atheism = atheists are all Stalinist mass murderers. And it's no more warped than your endless, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Radical secularists killed more than a hundred million people in Europe and Asia in the twentieth century. You need to quit pretending that this fact is somehow unimportant or trying to make it go away with silly word games (e.g. calling Communism a religion).

[LonesomePolecat]

Marx intentionally dismissed belief in God as a necessary component of his (economic) philosophy, and why shouldn't he? He also stated plainly that "atheism is far from Communism". It's atheistic in that theism is irrelevant to an economic model. The teachings of Christ, meanwhile, are pretty easily read as Communistic (or, at the very least, socialistic). Just like Christianity, the way Communism was practiced did not often square with how it was put forth as a philosophy. Nonetheless, Marxism is an explicitly atheistic philosophy, and it is brand of communism which came to rule in Russia and China. It is no more reasonable to expect a Christian to apologize for every crime committed in the name of Christianity than it is to expect an atheist or secularist to apologize for the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

[I_Know_Nothing]

It is an economic model and has nothing to do with god.
Christian communism is like meat-eating vegetarianism.


I don't get it. You realize that communism has nothing to do with god but still think Christian communism is self contradictory?

[Ají de Gallina]

I don't get it. You realize that communism has nothing to do with god but still think Christian communism is self contradictory?

Yeah.

[I_Know_Nothing]

I don't get it. You realize that communism has nothing to do with god but still think Christian communism is self contradictory?
Yeah.





Note to self....

[thelabdude]

The moneychangers in the temple?

He turned over their table and said unkind things. He never lifted a hand on them. Please give me book, chapter and verse.

[LonesomePolecat]

I don't get it. You realize that communism has nothing to do with god but still think Christian communism is self contradictory? Christianity and Marxism (the most prevalent form of communism today) are certainly mutually exclusive.

[LonesomePolecat]

He turned over their table and said unkind things. He never lifted a hand on them. Please give me book, chapter and verse.

Jesus Cleanses the Temple, John 2: 13-16:


13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade." He made and used a whip. I assume he was using it on somebody.

[mattkilla440]

Christians should come out and explain the differences in him and core beliefs of the christian faith. people should realize that what a person does is their choice just because they are part of whatever religion does not condone that the religion is at fault. some people are just crazy or turn crazy and so many times for no good logical reason need to blame an organization or religion that the person is in. very bad logic. same reason that we should not blame violent video games for peoples behaviors because 99% of the time the rest of the people play violent video games, watch violent movies etc are sane. now i know that this man had a sh!t ton of papers calming he did this because he was christian but either a. he was just insane or b. like so many other times using religion as a front to do whatever the hell he/she wants.

[Bryan Ekers]

Christianity and Marxism (the most prevalent form of communism today) are certainly mutually exclusive.

It's worth adding "(the most prevalent form of Christianity today)" to the above as well, since the current forms bear little similarity to the original, which was indeed somewhat communal.

[humanafterall]

What really upsets me is that the best photo they could find of Breivik was him in full Masonic regalia. Way to make us look bad, Breivik. You created more fuel for the Anti-Mason fire. Dumbass.

[Ají de Gallina]

Christians should come out and explain the differences in him and core beliefs of the christian faith. people should realize that what a person does is their choice just because they are part of whatever religion does not condone that the religion is at fault. some people are just crazy or turn crazy and so many times for no good logical reason need to blame an organization or religion that the person is in. very bad logic. same reason that we should not blame violent video games for peoples behaviors because 99% of the time the rest of the people play violent video games, watch violent movies etc are sane. now i know that this man had a sh!t ton of papers calming he did this because he was christian but either a. he was just insane or b. like so many other times using religion as a front to do whatever the hell he/she wants.

The thing is: why stop at religion?
Should all Norwegians do the same?
All Freemasons? All people who own guns?

I get your point that it's a good moment (coming out of a tragedy) to highlight certain aspects of your beliefs, especially those that include not killing 80 teenagers in cold blood, but it could alo be understood as one feeling guilty in some way.

[mattkilla440]

i would stop at religion because its the medias main topic and his reason for doing what he did right?

The thing is: why stop at religion?
Should all Norwegians do the same?
All Freemasons? All people who own guns?

I get your point that it's a good moment (coming out of a tragedy) to highlight certain aspects of your beliefs, especially those that include not killing 80 teenagers in cold blood, but it could alo be understood as one feeling guilty in some way.

[Zoe]

Lonesome Polecat: Christianity and Marxism (the most prevalent form of communism today) are certainly mutually exclusive.

So if you sell all that you own to feed the poor and live a simple life of sharing, you can't be a Christian?

In answer to the OP, I don't blame the Muslim for acts of terrorism anymore than I blame Germans or Jews or Christians or testosterone. I don't blame Norwegians or blond hair. I blame the people who committed the acts of terrorism and the people who willfully inspired those people to react with violence.

Der Trihs, your words are filled with generalizations and mischaracterizations of religious people. Some may fit your descriptions, but not most. Your responses have become as unthinking as a delivery from a gumball machine. You are capable of much clearer thinking than that.

Christians are not all alike. Most of us are not violent or even threatening. Many of us agree with you about the negative influence of fundamentalism when it becomes too involved in controlling the government. You have a very large blind spot which you never acknowledge and that is a weakness in your arguments. Consider becoming a peacemaker yourself. "Blessed are the peacemakers."

[Really Not All That Bright]

An an incidental note, I object to definitions that describe atheism as "a lack of belief in God", on the basis of accuracy. The literal meaning of the term is simply "without theism", which more reasonably applies to religions in general, not all of which incorporate a "God".
This is backwards. Theism is belief in god. Religion isn't. So irreligious fits your argument, but atheist doesn't. You can, for example, be an atheist and a Buddhist.

[2square4u]

Nobody is responsible for another person's actions unless they have actively encuraged those actions.

I don't ask a Muslim to apologize for 9/11
I don't ask a Christian to apologize for the Utøya killings
I won't ever apologize for wrongs performed by Europeans, Westerners or white males.

[thelabdude]

He made and used a whip. I assume he was using it on somebody.

From the well respected NIV ''So he made a whip of cords and drove all out of the temple area, both sheep and cattle.'' None of the other Gospels mention the whip.

[Lust4Life]

Nonsense. I just pointed out that attempts to equate atheism and communism are a standard way of smearing atheism.

Personally I always smear atheists by saying they have small willies, and were always the last people to get picked in team games at school.

Plus its a known fact that ALL communists love the smell of beetroot in the morning.

So how d'you like them EGGS !

Bastards !

[Ají de Gallina]

i would stop at religion because its the medias main topic and his reason for doing what he did right?

I get the point of religion for this specific thread. I was trying to make a more general point.

So if you sell all that you own to feed the poor and live a simple life of sharing, you can't be a Christian?
(snipped)


Sure you can, but that's not Marxism or Communism.

[Apollyon]

... indicated that he was doing with religious motives."The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon"... the Knights Templar? Seriously? Well, since they were officially dissovled in 1312 it does seem a bit unreasonable to suggest that Christians should apologise for Breivik's actions.

(Yes, slightly tongue in cheek, but I think the idea of people apologising for things they had no hand in or control over is fairly daft).

[thelurkinghorror]

Sure you can, but that's not Marxism or Communism.

You gotta watch out for those "cultural Franciscans" infiltrating our governments.

"The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon"... the Knights Templar? Seriously? Well, since they were officially dissovled in 1312 it does seem a bit unreasonable to suggest that Christians should apologise for Breivik's actions.

(Yes, slightly tongue in cheek, but I think the idea of people apologising for things they had no hand in or control over is fairly daft).

Haven't you seen Dan Brown stuff, National Treasure, or Assassin's Creed? They're still around.

Think we can blame(thank) the French for killing them off? Granted, the reasons were likely spurious because Philip IV was a dick, but he (and by extension all French people) got rid of them.

[Apollyon]

Haven't you seen Dan Brown stuff, National Treasure, or Assassin's Creed? They're still around.Hey, I read The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail before it was parodied by Umberto Eco… Dan Brown is a Johnny-come-lately to this party. :)

My observation was just that since they were officially disbanded in the early 1300s by the then offcial Christian establishment it's a bit on the nose to suggest that the Christians should be responsible for them 700 years later.

Think we can blame(thank) the French for killing them off? Granted, the reasons were likely spurious because Philip IV was a dick, but he (and by extension all French people) got rid of them.Well, apparently, (if we are to credit Messrs. Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln, Brown, et al) then they didn't do a very thorough job.

[thelurkinghorror]

Dan Brown wrote books, too? ;)

Technically, the papacy was involved in the Templar suppression, but this was also during the Avignon Papacy, when they didn't even reside in Rome and were subservient to the French king, who wanted the Templars gone, and of course their riches. A task which he had practice on when he did similar to the Jews, and kicked them out of France.

[punch line loser]

i lost track of this conversation around the time someone decided to be on the internet and bring up the nazis again... and right when i was beginning to believe i could hang out on message boards again

so someone remind me what the hell we're talking about? something about monty python... right?

[JKellyMap]

I don't think anyone is equating them, simply pointing out that communism is an atheistic idea...

Ha ha ha ha HA HA HA! This is hilarious. Is Keynesian economics a non-mint-chocolate-chip-ice-cream idea? Is Libertarianism a non-Sergeant-Pepper's-Lonely-Heart's-Club-Band idea?

Ha...HA HA ha HA HA....

Thanks for the laughs, Ají. We could all use a chuckle.

[Wotdazog]

No, absolutely not. Apology intones responsibility. Political correctness is a cancer on the public mind, and it should not be made to force people account for events not in their control.

(First post on SD, forumites! I'm looking forward to ignoring the ignorant here, too. Not that any of you should trust that I'm not a part of the problem ... Love)

[Mangetout]

If other members of the religion do not consider the actions characteristic or prescribed by their religion, then it is not relevant that they should apologise.

If other members of the religion do consider the actions characteristic or prescribed by the religion, then they probably won't consider an apology necessary.

[Mangetout]

It is an economic model and has nothing to do with god.
Christian communism is like meat-eating vegetarianism.No it's not. Meat-eating and vegetarianism are necessarily mutually exclusive. Christianity and communism are not.

They may not be especially compatible, but they're not mutually exclusive. The early church had quite a socialist/communist leaning, at least as described in the Bible.

[thelabdude]

No, absolutely not. Apology intones responsibility.

Good point. As a Christian, I do feel I need to speak out against those that I feel are distorting Christianity. I can condemn the Oslo killings as being contrary to what I believe. The rest of the world needs to know that most people calling themselves Christians abhor such. I am sorry the Oslo killings happened, but take no responsibility for it.

[magellan01]

It is not an "atheistic idea". And of course people are equating them, like I said that's the standard for believers; communism = atheism = atheists are all Stalinist mass murderers. It's so standard it's positively a cliche.

People do not "equate" them. Really. Point to just one person who does so. What most people realize is that there's no room within communism for God. So atheism is a condition for communism.

[Czarcasm]

People do not "equate" them. Really. Point to just one person who does so. What most people realize is that there's no room within communism for God. So atheism is a condition for communism.There was no room for anything but Communism in Communism.

[Mangetout]

...there's no room within communism for God...

Is this really a meaningful statement though? If so, what does it mean?

Are you saying that communism explicitly excludes God, or just that it lacks a convenient empty slot for him?

If the latter, is the same not true of many, many other things? Is there room in capitalism for God? (including God in capitalism just gives the result of 'capitalism plus God', as far as I can see)

[Shodan]

Are you saying that communism explicitly excludes God, or just that it lacks a convenient empty slot for him?Marist-Leninist thought specifically excludes God, with all the talk about dialectical materialism.
The Party aims at the complete destruction of links between the exploiting classes and... religious propaganda, while assisting the actual liberation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizing the broadest possible education-enlightening and anti-religious propaganda.
The tenth CPSU congress met in 1921 and it passed a resolution calling for 'wide-scale organization, leadership, and cooperation in the task of anti-religious agitation and propaganda among the broad masses of the workers, using the mass media, films, books, lectures, and other devices.[50]

When church leaders demanded freedom of religion under the constitution, the Communists responded with terror. They murdered the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests.
During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot.
In 1995, the Russian state commissioner confirmed that 200,000 Russian Orthodox Priests, monks, and nuns were killed.

These persecutions were carried out specifically because the Communist states involved were anti-religious, although sometimes they would use the excuse that the people they were murdering were anti-State.

Regards,
Shodan

[astorian]

Lest I be accused of playing the "No True Scotsman" game, let's be clear about a few things.

OBVIOUSLY, there have been many Christians over the past 2,000 years who have done horrible things in the name of Jesus. As a Catholic Christian, I HAVE to be ashamed of such people, and I have an obligation to denounce them.

Even though I KNOW that the Catholic Church has never said or done anything t oencourage the bombing of abortion clinics, I also know that the people who do such thing are frequently acting according to what they THINK are Catholic principles. So, as much as I'd like to wash my hands of such people, I can't. I don't have the luxury of pretending those people have nothing to do with me or my church. If it turns out that hypothetical "Sean Fitzgerald" planted a bomb at a Planed Parenthood clinic and said the Rosary while waiting for the bomb to go off... I HAVE to apologize for him. I think he's a HORRIBLe Catholic, an EVIL Catholic, but there's no way around it, he IS a Catholic, and I need to apologize for him.

If Breivik is a Christian, I have to feel SOME responsibility for him. If his beliefs and principles resemble mine i nthe least, I may HAVE to apologize for him. So, IS he a Christian in any real sense? Even if I think he's perverted Christianity, do I recognize him as some kind of Christian for all that?

No, I don't think so. His own writings indicate pretty clearly that he doesn't even believe in God and has NEVER been religiously observant. He uses "Christian" as a vague, all-purpose name for what he regards as Western culture.

A guy who doesn't believe in God, who dismisses traditional religion as "a crutch," and doesn't belong to any kind of Church is not a Christian in my book. I don't have to disassociate myself from him because he was NEVER associated with me in the first place.

[Czarcasm]

Marist-Leninist thought specifically excludes God, with all the talk about dialectical materialism.





These persecutions were carried out specifically because the Communist states involved were anti-religious, although sometimes they would use the excuse that the people they were murdering were anti-State.

Regards,
ShodanThank you ever so much for not equating atheism(which is nothing more than not believing in God) with Communism(believing in nothing but the State.)

[I_Know_Nothing]

Originally Posted by Zoe View Post
So if you sell all that you own to feed the poor and live a simple life of sharing, you can't be a Christian?
(snipped)



Sure you can, but that's not Marxism or Communism.


Maybe not Communism, but definitely communism.

From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism)

"1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. "

[magellan01]

Lest I be accused of playing the "No True Scotsman" game, let's be clear about a few things.

OBVIOUSLY, there have been many Christians over the past 2,000 years who have done horrible things in the name of Jesus. As a Catholic Christian, I HAVE to be ashamed of such people, and I have an obligation to denounce them.

Even though I KNOW that the Catholic Church has never said or done anything t oencourage the bombing of abortion clinics, I also know that the people who do such thing are frequently acting according to what they THINK are Catholic principles. So, as much as I'd like to wash my hands of such people, I can't. I don't have the luxury of pretending those people have nothing to do with me or my church. If it turns out that hypothetical "Sean Fitzgerald" planted a bomb at a Planed Parenthood clinic and said the Rosary while waiting for the bomb to go off... I HAVE to apologize for him. I think he's a HORRIBLe Catholic, an EVIL Catholic, but there's no way around it, he IS a Catholic, and I need to apologize for him.

If Breivik is a Christian, I have to feel SOME responsibility for him. If his beliefs and principles resemble mine i nthe least, I may HAVE to apologize for him. So, IS he a Christian in any real sense? Even if I think he's perverted Christianity, do I recognize him as some kind of Christian for all that?

No, I don't think so. His own writings indicate pretty clearly that he doesn't even believe in God and has NEVER been religiously observant. He uses "Christian" as a vague, all-purpose name for what he regards as Western culture.

A guy who doesn't believe in God, who dismisses traditional religion as "a crutch," and doesn't belong to any kind of Church is not a Christian in my book. I don't have to disassociate myself from him because he was NEVER associated with me in the first place.

Well said.

[magellan01]

Is this really a meaningful statement though? If so, what does it mean?

Are you saying that communism explicitly excludes God, or just that it lacks a convenient empty slot for him?

If the latter, is the same not true of many, many other things? Is there room in capitalism for God? (including God in capitalism just gives the result of 'capitalism plus God', as far as I can see)

Shodan answered this well. To answer your question though, my point is that if you have God present, you won't have communism. There is no room for him. It's about "the state", nothing else. Other than the death of millions, of course. ;)

[Shodan]

Thank you ever so much for not equating atheism(which is nothing more than not believing in God) with Communism(believing in nothing but the State.)
Your posts are becoming progressively less intelligible.

Marx and Lenin thought that communism necessarily included atheism, especially anti-religious atheism based on hate of the sort espoused by several posters here on the SDMB. And the Communist leaders of the USSR (and Albania and China during the Cultural Revolution and so on) acted on that belief with anti-religious persecution and slaughter. Not simply because they were Communists, but because they believed that Communism necessarily included anti-religious hate.

So all the attempts by atheists to deny that the mass slaughter of theists in the USSR and elsewhere had to do with atheism are simply "No True Scotsman" BS, as has been pointed out.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you to understand.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Your posts are becoming progressively less intelligible.

Marx and Lenin thought that communism necessarily included atheism, especially anti-religious atheism based on hate of the sort espoused by several posters here on the SDMB. And the Communist leaders of the USSR (and Albania and China during the Cultural Revolution and so on) acted on that belief with anti-religious persecution and slaughter. Not simply because they were Communists, but because they believed that Communism necessarily included anti-religious hate.

So all the attempts by atheists to deny that the mass slaughter of theists in the USSR and elsewhere had to do with atheism are simply "No True Scotsman" BS, as has been pointed out.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you to understand.

Regards,
ShodanI think I understand. You make the point, over and over again, to not equate atheism with communism.

[magellan01]

I think I understand. You make the point, over and over again, to not equate atheism with communism.

I forgot my decoder ring. Can you explain plainly what the point is that you're trying to make?

[tomndebb]

Acts of the Apostles:
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

[astorian]

How about this: instead of playing the game of "Your side did this" and "Yeah, well what about the time YOUR side did THAT," let's try another approach.

Whenever an extremist of ANY ethnicity, of any religion, of any political affiliation, of any ideology, commits a terrible crime, the people who are part of his group(s) have to ask themselves honestly, "Do the things this guy believes really resemble what I believe? Are the things he's saying anywhere close to things I know I've said myself? Are his causes my causes?" It doesn't matter if we think the guilty party has twisted or perverted our beliefs. It doesn't matter if we think he's taken fine principles and pushed them too far. We have to ask honestly, "HOWEVER extreme and perverted this guy is, does he think/look/sound like me? And does that say anything damning about my beliefs?"

SOMETIMES, as facts come out, we can let out a sigh of relief ("That guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords was a schizo, not a conservative!"). Sometimes we can't.

I'm NOT saying we bear responsibility for EVERYBODY on our side. Sometimes, bad people are connected to us by coincidence. As a Catholic, I feel no responsibility for the crimes of notorious Catholics like Al Capone, because Capone never made the slightest pretense to be driven by Catholic teachings. Torquemada, on the other hand, DID! I have to be ashamed of Torquemada- he committed his crimes BECAUSE of beliefs and principles I share. Even if it's absolutely true that nothing Jesus said justified murder, the fact remains that people who sincerely consider thmeselves Christian DO commit murder in Christ's name. It would be an unforgivable copout to resort to saying, "He's not a TRUE Christian."

I don't blame Al Gore or David Suzuki for the murders committed by the Unabomber, but Mr. Suzuki SHOULD be troubled by how similar Ted Kaczynski's principles were to those of mainstream environmentalists. I don't blame any of my Muslim co-workers for Major Hasan's murderous spree at Fort Hood, but I sure HOPE they're not too quick to say "That has nothing to do with Islam and only a racist would suggest it does." Sorry, folks, but when a man commits murder while screaming "Allahu Akbar," you CAN'T pretend he isn't one of you. You have to look at the bad people acting in your name and ask yourselves if something has gone terribly wrong on your side.

Sometimes we ALL have to ask that.

[Mangetout]

Marist-Leninist thought specifically excludes God, with all the talk about dialectical materialism.





These persecutions were carried out specifically because the Communist states involved were anti-religious, although sometimes they would use the excuse that the people they were murdering were anti-State.

Regards,
Shodan
Certainly these are examples if communist organisations that excluded religion, but does that mean exclusion of religion is a necessary component of communism?

[Ají de Gallina]

Ha ha ha ha HA HA HA! This is hilarious. Is Keynesian economics a non-mint-chocolate-chip-ice-cream idea? Is Libertarianism a non-Sergeant-Pepper's-Lonely-Heart's-Club-Band idea?

Ha...HA HA ha HA HA....

Thanks for the laughs, Ají. We could all use a chuckle.

I'll be here all week.
Tip your waitress well.

No it's not. Meat-eating and vegetarianism are necessarily mutually exclusive. Christianity and communism are not.

They may not be especially compatible, but they're not mutually exclusive. The early church had quite a socialist/communist leaning, at least as described in the Bible.

Maybe not Communism, but definitely communism.
From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism)
"1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. "

Agreed that they are not completely exclusive. I've alway thought that describing the early church a communisitc/socialist is putting 19th century European ideas into 1st century Palestine. There are similarities, but I'd call the early church "communalist"; there was never a question of ownership of the means ofproduction only on the fruits of the labour.

Lest I be accused of playing the "No True Scotsman" game, let's be clear about a few things.

OBVIOUSLY, there have been many Christians over the past 2,000 years who have done horrible things in the name of Jesus. As a Catholic Christian, I HAVE to be ashamed of such people, and I have an obligation to denounce them.

Even though I KNOW that the Catholic Church has never said or done anything t oencourage the bombing of abortion clinics, I also know that the people who do such thing are frequently acting according to what they THINK are Catholic principles. So, as much as I'd like to wash my hands of such people, I can't. I don't have the luxury of pretending those people have nothing to do with me or my church. If it turns out that hypothetical "Sean Fitzgerald" planted a bomb at a Planed Parenthood clinic and said the Rosary while waiting for the bomb to go off... I HAVE to apologize for him. I think he's a HORRIBLe Catholic, an EVIL Catholic, but there's no way around it, he IS a Catholic, and I need to apologize for him.

If Breivik is a Christian, I have to feel SOME responsibility for him. If his beliefs and principles resemble mine i nthe least, I may HAVE to apologize for him. So, IS he a Christian in any real sense? Even if I think he's perverted Christianity, do I recognize him as some kind of Christian for all that?

No, I don't think so. His own writings indicate pretty clearly that he doesn't even believe in God and has NEVER been religiously observant. He uses "Christian" as a vague, all-purpose name for what he regards as Western culture.

A guy who doesn't believe in God, who dismisses traditional religion as "a crutch," and doesn't belong to any kind of Church is not a Christian in my book. I don't have to disassociate myself from him because he was NEVER associated with me in the first place.

How about this: instead of playing the game of "Your side did this" and "Yeah, well what about the time YOUR side did THAT," let's try another approach.

Whenever an extremist of ANY ethnicity, of any religion, of any political affiliation, of any ideology, commits a terrible crime, the people who are part of his group(s) have to ask themselves honestly, "Do the things this guy believes really resemble what I believe? Are the things he's saying anywhere close to things I know I've said myself? Are his causes my causes?" It doesn't matter if we think the guilty party has twisted or perverted our beliefs. It doesn't matter if we think he's taken fine principles and pushed them too far. We have to ask honestly, "HOWEVER extreme and perverted this guy is, does he think/look/sound like me? And does that say anything damning about my beliefs?"

SOMETIMES, as facts come out, we can let out a sigh of relief ("That guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords was a schizo, not a conservative!"). Sometimes we can't.

I'm NOT saying we bear responsibility for EVERYBODY on our side. Sometimes, bad people are connected to us by coincidence. As a Catholic, I feel no responsibility for the crimes of notorious Catholics like Al Capone, because Capone never made the slightest pretense to be driven by Catholic teachings. Torquemada, on the other hand, DID! I have to be ashamed of Torquemada- he committed his crimes BECAUSE of beliefs and principles I share. Even if it's absolutely true that nothing Jesus said justified murder, the fact remains that people who sincerely consider thmeselves Christian DO commit murder in Christ's name. It would be an unforgivable copout to resort to saying, "He's not a TRUE Christian."

I don't blame Al Gore or David Suzuki for the murders committed by the Unabomber, but Mr. Suzuki SHOULD be troubled by how similar Ted Kaczynski's principles were to those of mainstream environmentalists. I don't blame any of my Muslim co-workers for Major Hasan's murderous spree at Fort Hood, but I sure HOPE they're not too quick to say "That has nothing to do with Islam and only a racist would suggest it does." Sorry, folks, but when a man commits murder while screaming "Allahu Akbar," you CAN'T pretend he isn't one of you. You have to look at the bad people acting in your name and ask yourselves if something has gone terribly wrong on your side.

Sometimes we ALL have to ask that.

I agree with your general idea, but more than apologise - because only the guilty apologise - it does give you a moment of reflection "Did we do something that a non-utterly-mad person may think validates this shit?". Having said that, I'm more than willing to apologise if it serves the greater good, although my experince tells me that those who normally demand apologies never actually accept them because they want complete renunciation, i.e. if I apologised from Breivik I'd also have to drop Chrisitanity and start taking dumps on Bibles.

The last bit about Breivik's non-Christianity is very informative.

[Shodan]

Certainly these are examples if communist organisations that excluded religion, but does that mean exclusion of religion is a necessary component of communism?
It is of the version espoused by Marx and Lenin (and Pol Pot and Mao and Hoxhe etc.) Both believed that materialism, especially dialectical and historical materialism, were basic to their philosophy.
Marx dubbed religion the “opiate of the masses,” and opined that, “Communism begins where atheism begins.” Religion is poison.
Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

1. Atheism is not materialism.
2. “Communism begins where atheism begins.” Murderers begin as babies, but no one is trying to constantly unfavorably associate the two.

[Shodan]

1. Atheism is not materialism.Of course it is - don't be ridiculous.
2. “Communism begins where atheism begins.” Murderers begin as babies, but no one is trying to constantly unfavorably associate the two.
They do when the babies grow up and murder people.

Look, atheists have killed lots and lots of people, especially during the 20th century. And lots of the time, their motive for killing people was that those they killed were religious and believed in God. These things happened. The fact that it bothers you to have this pointed out doesn't mean it isn't real.

Deal with it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Of course it is - don't be ridiculous.
They do when the babies grow up and murder people.

Look, atheists have killed lots and lots of people, especially during the 20th century. And lots of the time, their motive for killing people was that those they killed were religious and believed in God. These things happened. The fact that it bothers you to have this pointed out doesn't mean it isn't real.

Deal with it.If you are referring to Communism, people weren't killed because were religious and believed in God-they were killed because those in power believed that they threatened the State, they very same reason other non-religious groups in communist countries were persecuted.

[rat avatar]

of course not. if anything, those journalists who insist on positing a link between this attack and islam ought to write apologies of their own.

der trihs, while i claim no authority in biblical matters i would ask to see a quote from the canonical bible that resembles "go forth and kill the unbeliever/outsider/less powerful." christianity (not unique in this regard) was able to spread because it offered empowerment to the less powerful, e.g. "the meek will inherit the earth," and as for killing outsiders, well that not only conflicts directly with the teachings of jesus (see cecil's article on the good samaritan), but it's a pretty lousy way to win new converts, wouldn't you say? don't fall victim to the same prejudices that those who campaign against islam as a religion of hatred have. a sweeping generalization about "official doctrine" (as if such a thing for 'christianity' even exists) requires some pretty serious proof if you don't want to appear completely ignorant, and to say that people using it to promote peace are perverting it is not only baseless but incredibly offensive even to a non-religious person like me. 'enlightened' age my left foot



Exodus 22:20
Exodus 31:14
Exodus 32:27-29
Lev 25:44-46
Num 14:43-45
Num 33:50-52
Deu 3:6
Deu 13:6-10
Deu 7:2
Deu 12:30
Deu 13:1-5
Deu 17:2-7
Kings 3:19-25
2 chron 28:6

And there I'm bored,

Yahweh was a bedouin war god previous to the whole "one and only" and much later trinity mess happened.

Thus the killing of those who worshiped Baʿal etc... from the earlier "pagan" times.

Even in the NT Jesus was condemning people to death and destruction for not believing, but you are correct there really is no official christian doctrine. the actual bible has little to do with most christian dogma.

[Grumman]

They do when the babies grow up and murder people.
No, they don't. If they did, where are the threads condemning Breivik's mother for having children? Hell, to be comparable there'd have to be people condemning all mothers for his actions.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims to defend your position, at least choose something less obviously absurd.

[rat avatar]

Of course it is - don't be ridiculous.
They do when the babies grow up and murder people.

Look, atheists have killed lots and lots of people, especially during the 20th century. And lots of the time, their motive for killing people was that those they killed were religious and believed in God. These things happened. The fact that it bothers you to have this pointed out doesn't mean it isn't real.

Deal with it.

Regards,
Shodan

Cite where these athiests killed people in the name of not being theiests?


I am looking for any evidence that they their main motive was being a skeptic and not believing in the supernatural was the justification for the murders.

Note that Hitler claimed to be Catholic both in private and in public.

FYI Pol Pot was not an atheist and the party actually adopted concepts from Theravada Buddhism.

What I understand about Stalin is that no one died because they refused to embrace atheism.

They died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders were killed because not for refusing to become atheists, but because they were considered part of the old power structure that would try to oppose the state.

Of course atheists can be bad people, but I see little proof that the lack of belief in a super natural power it is used as a common justification for mass murder.

Obviously not being a theist does not preclude one from being dogmatic about other causes, like communism.

[ITR champion]

Okay, I'm curious. In what way do you see Breivik as different from Christian Identity whackos and the like? Because he hasn't to your knowledge participated in the evangelical Christian ritual of the altar call?
I'm not aware that Breivik ever made any indication that he wanted his actions tied to Christianity. I downloaded his manifesto and searched for "Christian". It appears for the first time on page 53, because that's where he trashes the Christian-Muslim alliance at Georgetown University.

Wow, I'm impressed by the fact that you speak Norwegian and happy that you escaped alive from the island. I was misinformed and thought that http://www.spittoon.org/archives/10273:
When I click on that link, I get a file not found error.

[hildea]

Remove the : at the end of the URL: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/10273

[Triskadecamus]

I am a Christian.

I am very sorry that guy killed so many people.

I doubt that that will help much.

Tris

[ShibbOleth]

If one person claiming to represent a religion does something bad, the rest of that religion shouldn't be under any obligation to apologize for what he did. It doesn't make sense.


And if one person claiming to represent a religion does something good, then the rest of the religion shouldn't take any credit for what they did.