Religions are what religions bloody well do so no - I’m not going to point out where it forbids naming teddy bears Mohammed in the Koran. Religions are what the religious believe, say and do and leading the way in ass-hattery by a country mile is?
Anyone? Bueller?
Someone writes a little book about how he thinks people should act, and 1500 years later people are whipping each other to death because they didn’t get the point. I hate all forms of religion, and every time I try to explain why someone will say that everyone who does bad things in the name of religion just uses it as an excuse and would have done those things anyway.
Well, convince me. Give me a coherent argument that this woman would have been arrested for allowing children to name a teddy bear Muhammad, in a world without religion. Go ahead. Hit me. I’m waiting.
Suppose a famous American boxer decided to name himself Muhammad. Would that insult Islam?
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Well, convince me. Give me a coherent argument that this woman would have been arrested for allowing children to name a teddy bear Muhammad, in a world without religion. Go ahead. Hit me. I’m waiting.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in a Communist world, quite likely she would have been arrested and sentenced to twenty years hard labor for getting together with friends to sing folk songs or for having Jehovah’s Witness pamphlets. Have you never read The Gulag Archipelago? Are you trying to say atheists are clearly more rational and humane than religionists? The notion is vastly amusing.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Well, in a Communist world, quite likely she would have been arrested and sentenced to twenty years hard labor for getting together with friends to sing folk songs or for having Jehovah’s Witness pamphlets. Have you never read The Gulag Archipelago? Are you trying to say atheists are clearly more rational and humane than religionists? The notion is vastly amusing.
[/QUOTE]
So basically your argument is “the Soviet Union was bad too”? Impressive.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Someone writes a little book about how he thinks people should act, and 1500 years later people are whipping each other to death because they didn’t get the point. I hate all forms of religion, and every time I try to explain why someone will say that everyone who does bad things in the name of religion just uses it as an excuse and would have done those things anyway.
Well, convince me. Give me a coherent argument that this woman would have been arrested for allowing children to name a teddy bear Muhammad, in a world without religion. Go ahead. Hit me. I’m waiting.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone would ever have been arguing that the exact same thing would have happened in the complete absence of religion - the argument, as far as I’ve understood it, is more along the lines that people do shitty things to each other, regardless and that it’s difficult to tell whether the total of all these shitty things is greater or smaller than it would be in the complete absence of religion.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I don’t think anyone would ever have been arguing that the exact same thing would have happened in the complete absence of religion - the argument, as far as I’ve understood it, is more along the lines that people do shitty things to each other, regardless and that it’s difficult to tell whether the total of all these shitty things is greater or smaller than it would be in the complete absence of religion.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, and for the record you were definitely not one of the people I thought of when I said that.
Be that as it may, this case still illustrates quite well why I don’t buy that argument either. Without religion, I have a hard time seeing that the people now arresting her would have been walking around with pent-up evil inside them that just had to be let out somehow, but are now satisfied and can spend the rest of the day being nice.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
So basically your argument is “the Soviet Union was bad too”? Impressive.
[/QUOTE]
I am pretty much anti-religious, I think the world would be better off without organized religion. However, yes, it was a good example. The country has bad laws; a country could be religious and not have terrible and silly laws. Does Japan, Canada, USA or England have laws like this?
The Soviet Union had terrible and inhumane laws that seriously oppressed freedom of expression and speech without having religious reasons.
How is that not a good counter example? Brazil is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, not a religion known for its historic tolerance and yet Brazil has no laws to give 40 lashes to someone for naming a Teddy Bear Christ or Jesus.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The Soviet Union had terrible and inhumane laws that seriously oppressed freedom of expression and speech without having religious reasons.
How is that not a good counter example?
[/quote]
So we can name a handful of openly atheistic states that had laws possibly as heinous as those of the average theocracy. I’m still not impressed. And, having hung out with a few serious Maoists in my time, I wouldn’t quibble if anyone wanted to call it a religion.
You’re saying that like it’s a good thing. It’s not, it’s a neutral thing.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Suppose a famous American boxer decided to name himself Muhammad. Would that insult Islam?
[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair, he was very careful not to say “float like a butterfly, punch like a teddy bear.”
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
So basically your argument is “the Soviet Union was bad too”? Impressive.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if your argument is that religion makes people irrational and inhumane, then it’s obviously relevant to point out that people acting in the name of an explicitly atheistic political philosophy killed tens of millions of people around the world. Estimates vary widely, but the figure for those who died in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China could easily be as high as a hundred million. You can’t make that fact go away by sneering at my post.
Atheism and secularism don’t make more people more rational and humane. They just give the likes of Stalin and Mao a different set of rationalizations for commiting their atrocities.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Fair enough, and for the record you were definitely not one of the people I thought of when I said that.
Be that as it may, this case still illustrates quite well why I don’t buy that argument either. Without religion, I have a hard time seeing that the people now arresting her would have been walking around with pent-up evil inside them that just had to be let out somehow, but are now satisfied and can spend the rest of the day being nice.
[/QUOTE]
True, in fact I don’t actually think it works like that either (I really don’t expect that people who are fucked up enough to do this will turn nice when they get what they want).
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
They just give the likes of Stalin and Mao a different set of rationalizations for commiting their atrocities.
[/QUOTE]
So your argument is, in fact, that if the people arresting this woman hadn’t had religion as an excuse to do so, they would have used another excuse? People who get furious because someone (in their eyes) smears their religious icons would without religion would have found something else to be furious about? This is a perfect 1:1 correlation? There is simply a certain fixed amount of evil and anger in the world?
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
So your argument is, in fact, that if the people arresting this woman hadn’t had religion as an excuse to do so, they would have used another excuse? People who get furious because someone (in their eyes) smears their religious icons would without religion would have found something else to be furious about? This is a perfect 1:1 correlation? There is simply a certain fixed amount of evil and anger in the world?
[/QUOTE]
I’m saying that human nature doesn’t change with ideology. Bullies will be bullies. If they don’t persecute one person for naming a teddy bear Muhammad, they’ll persecute someone else for using a sheet of newspaper with Stalin’s picture on it for toilet paper. If you think that eliminating religion will somehow reduce the level of brutishness in human nature, you are sadly mistaken.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
So we can name a handful of openly atheistic states that had laws possibly as heinous as those of the average theocracy. I’m still not impressed. And, having hung out with a few serious Maoists in my time, I wouldn’t quibble if anyone wanted to call it a religion.
You’re saying that like it’s a good thing. It’s not, it’s a neutral thing.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, this woman would not be facing 6 months in prison or 40 lashes if it were not for a fucked up country following the fucked up dictates of their religious asshole leaders, however, it is not religion alone or all religions that do this.
At this point, I think it is more about a large portion of a particular religion than religion as a whole. What Christians seemed to have matured out of a century or two ago, too many Muslims still seem to be living in the dark ages. Of courses Jews seemed to have got over these particular insanities over a thousand years ago.
Why is this one very large and popular religion still living so much in the dark ages is I think the question.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The Soviet Union had terrible and inhumane laws that seriously oppressed freedom of expression and speech without having religious reasons.
How is that not a good counter example?
[/QUOTE]
Because Communism is either a religion itself, or something very similar. You don’t need a god to be religious. You need faith, and an ideology and worldview based on that faith; Communism has those things.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
I’m saying that human nature doesn’t change with ideology. Bullies will be bullies. If they don’t persecute one person for naming a teddy bear Muhammad, they’ll persecute someone else for using a sheet of newspaper with Stalin’s picture on it for toilet paper. If you think that eliminating religion will somehow reduce the level of brutishness in human nature, you are sadly mistaken.
[/QUOTE]
Except that religion give those people reasons to attack people and excuses to do so that they wouldn’t have otherwise, and it tells them from childhood that it’s good to terrorize unbelievers. It helps make them bullies; it encourages and rewards bullies. This is, yet again, an attempt to pretend that religion has no effect on people when the effect is bad. I’m sure you’d cheerfully give religion credit if they were doing something nice.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Well, convince me. Give me a coherent argument that this woman would have been arrested for allowing children to name a teddy bear Muhammad, in a world without religion. Go ahead. Hit me. I’m waiting.
[/QUOTE]
Seldom is anyone ever convinced when they’ve issued a dare to convince them. They will find some tedious kink in the analogy to proclaim, “That’s different!” However, on the off chance that you might be convinced of how an atheist ruler might view the treatment of his image and name, consider Kim Jung Il:
In Pyongyang, the rules are very specific about how physically to handle the Kim image.
No one is permitted to point casually at a portrait of Kim Jong Il or his father, Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea. If you find yourself holding a book with a picture of a Kim on the cover, you’d best carry it with two hands, face up, in a dignified manner. And no thumb or fingers are ever allowed to touch or cover Kim’s face.
The image and name of the Kims are deeply ingrained as the sacred goods of North Korea, and a special etiquette has evolved in dealing with them. Rules exist for handling, carrying, hanging, and even disposing of Kim faces and portraits. There are also rituals for their printed names.
It is all part of a culture of propaganda designed to ensure permanent collective devotion among the North Korean people. No portrait of Dear Leader or Great Leader is to be folded. No newspaper issued on the birthday of Kim Jong Il or his father, when the photo is likely to be a full page, should be covered or used to wrap anything. Once a newspaper with a major photo of Kim is old or worn out, it may not be tossed out, but must be brought to a special collection point where the image is properly discarded.
A few years ago, prior to a special festival attended by many foreigners, a special 100-note currency was issued, using the Kim Il Sung face.
But it was quickly withdrawn from circulation after it was discovered that foreigners were casually folding the bills and putting them in wallets placed next to the derrière.
In writing about Kim, the name or character may not be casually deleted. In fact, the editing of journals and books mostly still takes place on paper. Journalists and writers must not remove Kim’s name from a sentence by crossing it out. Instead, The name must be circled, and only then removed.
And in published material, direct quotes by Kim or his father should always appear in a manner similar to how many Bible publishers treat the words of New Testament figures - in bold or illuminated type.N. Korea news: one source tells all - CSMonitor.com
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because Communism is either a religion itself, or something very similar.
[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to spread ignorance. Communism is an economic philosophy.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Stop trying to spread ignorance. Communism is an economic philosophy.
[/QUOTE]
It is an ideology that tells people how to run society, how the world works, and any number of things that have little if anything to do with economics. And it’s based on faith, which is why it doesn’t work very well. Faith seldom does.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because Communism is either a religion itself, or something very similar. You don’t need a god to be religious. You need faith, and an ideology and worldview based on that faith; Communism has those things.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I am anti-religion and anti-communist but you are the only person I know of that would equate the two together. By your definition, what is not religion or religion-like?