What people see in religion

[Darth Wong]

The biggest problem with race/religion statistics is the difficulty of getting accurate assessments of religion. It's tricky to figure out what that checkbox on the census form really means.

There are people who go to church once every few months at most, and uphold Christian beliefs only in the most vague "I think there's something out there" sense. I've known a lot of these people; during my brief foray into spirituality as a youth, I myself might have checked that box. My wife was in that state for many years. But does it mean that I could have been used as an example of a scientifically knowledgeable Christian at any time in my life? Of course not.

The census checkboxes are of limited value. A better metric is church attendance; regular church attendance is logically more closely linked to strength of religious faith than checkboxes on a census form. At last check, I believe Louisiana had the highest church attendance among US states. It would be interesting to see how many of the nation's better scientific research universities are located in that region, as opposed to northeast or west coast states.

[XPViking]

Mr. Wong,

I agree, especially in these PC times when people might feel offended about what kind of questions can be asked. I hope I'm using the correct statistical term but I think, Mr. Wong, that you are referring to reliability issues.

I think it also should be noted that the terms that are being tossed around here such as "intelligence", "IQ" and "religion" need to be properly defined. I'm sure that such studies involving those areas would naturally define those concepts.

However, I stand by my statement that a person should back up one's assumptions otherwise we all can be guilty of drawing up misguided conclusions which reinforce stereotypes. I mean, after all, how would people feel if I ran around saying "Koreans are a bunch of lawless bastards". Pretty stupid, right? But I can probably make a case (stated in less vitriolic terms) if I showed the number of car crashes per thousand and levels of perceived corruption.

Mr. Bean only rephrased your statement Mr. Wong and as such he should qualify what he stands for. He threw out some information and I checked into it, albeit quickly, with some mixed results. The links that I provided can be used as a point of departure for others who want to investigate this phenomenon. Really, Mr. Bean should be doing the research since he is the one who made the claim (or at least paraphrased yours).

I also would be interested if a relationship can be made between church attendance and the number of universities within a given area. Perhaps it would be better to find out the educational levels of churchgoers as compared to their attendance levels.

XPViking

[Mr. B]

during the turn of the millenium the jews in palestine were invaded by the evil pagan romans. the jewish leadership hated the romans and believed that the best way to rid them was to bring the messiah to liberate the people. they found some street urchin who was good at magic and sent him on his way while drawing on the old pagan myths of a virgin birth. thus jesus went and united the people and was then killed by the romans. thus we now have christianity because of a conspiracy to rid the middle east of the romans.

[Captain Cyran]

I don't mind the fact that some people here are dissing religion, iin some cases (mostly involving the Catholic church) I fully agree with you. However, I do disagree with you people who make generalizations about religious people and call them dumbasses, religous assholes, haters of science etc. if you do not mean to make this generalization well, that's the way it seems because it annoys the hell out of me. I am a Christian, United Methodist to be percise, but that in no way means that I hate atheists, or non-christians, in fact I have a few Atheist, Muslim, and Jewish friends. AS for why I believe in God, it's not because I need a safety net for this world, I like to think I am on my own pretty much in this world...I believe in God because I like the idea that there is something beyond death. OK I am done ranting on religion now....

[Alan Bolte]

Those SAT averages were all rather close to 1000...that's frightening to me. Are the tests configured poorly (Yeah, I know, even a good test is never the best measure), or are we just this stupid on average?

AS for why I believe in God, it's not because I need a safety net for this world, I like to think I am on my own pretty much in this world...I believe in God because I like the idea that there is something beyond death. OK I am done ranting on religion now....

But if you have some future after whatever happens in this world, then this world matters less. To what degree varies greatly from person to person, I've found, as well as between religions. However, it remains that you have that much of a fallback position.

Also, on the subject of the Dark Ages, I was under the impression that the only connection Christianity had with it was that, as people switched to the Christian philosophy of the times, they lost any interest in progress, and either were content with being poor farming peasants or felt they should be. So no great cities, no great art, not much at all for centuries. Then the Middle Ages come along, and the philosophy mostly remains long enough for the newly ambitious to take power over greater numbers of people. Of course, I have to simplify tremendously here.

[IDMR]

<Snip>

AS for why I believe in God, it's not because I need a safety net for this world, I like to think I am on my own pretty much in this world...I believe in God because I like the idea that there is something beyond death. OK I am done ranting on religion now....

Security believes are dangerous things, destructive to the reasoning faculty.

[XPViking]

Those SAT averages were all rather close to 1000...that's frightening to me. Are the tests configured poorly (Yeah, I know, even a good test is never the best measure), or are we just this stupid on average? - Alan Bolte

Dunno. I'm more familiar with TOEIC and TOEFL testing. That is, students get a high TOEIC score but can only utter "Hi". The SAT may not be the best measure of "intelligence" but it's part of the game.

XPViking




[/quote]

[Smiling Bandit]

Also, on the subject of the Dark Ages, I was under the impression that the only connection Christianity had with it was that, as people switched to the Christian philosophy of the times, they lost any interest in progress, and either were content with being poor farming peasants or felt they should be.

Eeehhhhhhhnnn! Wrong! Thank you for playing.

This is, at best, YOUR IMPRESSION! And without anyreal evidence except that the dark ages fell as Christianity spread. But the real cause of the Dark Ages was the lack of econmic viablility, stable government, and the introduction of somewhat more autocratic governments than the Romans.

If anything, Christianity, provided the few and the proud willing to learn and such the opportunity to study the finest knowledge then available, kept alive ancient literary traditions, and provided a stabilizing force in society.

Even those things which are traditionally considered the worst excesses of the Holy Church are, in many ways, forerunner sof modern institutions. The Spanish Inquisition was famed for prividing fair and equitable trials (if rather poor sentencing and criminal statutes) for the accused. The Crusades began by a non-professional force of ill-trained peasants and greedy knights inopposotion to the Pope's wishes. Nevertheless (in one of the most improbably successfull campaigns, ever) they took their goals and for a time kept Jerusalem open from the Muslims who wanted it closed off. (There were other Muslims who had once had Jerusalem and were farly tolerant, bu they;d been driven out) And the supposed slaughter in Jerusalem largely happened because both sides were thrown into confusion once the Crusaders breached the walls.

[Iceberg]

Modern attitudes toward the Inquisition were shaped by English literature of the late 1500s and early 1600s (note: about 200 years AFTER the end of the Inquisition). At the time, there was underway a very violent overthrow of the existing, Catholic religious order in England. At the end of this period, there were no Catholic clergy anywhere in England, most were murdered in kangaroo courts or mob 'justice' by the Protestant English, and the remainder having fled entirely to Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France. In order to justify the overthrow, the English Protestant clergy created an astounding number of completely false accounts of Inquisitorial excess and corruption (how would the English peasants know? They were ignorant and hated the Spanish anyway, and in any case the events they were being told about took place across a vast sea and more than 200 years ago). After a number of years, the people didn't know that the accounts were pretty much entirely fabricated, and began to repeat them as fact, and later to inflate the falsified accounts.

The Spanish, probably needless to say, have a VERY different view of the Inquisition than does the English-speaking world. The Inquisition was the institution that brought modern ideas of a "fair trial" to Spain. While suspects under the Inquisition were not yet allowed to see their accusers (this convention would take several more centuries to develop), they WERE allowed to hear and refute the evidence against them and to plead their case, which was a MASSIVE improvement over previous court systems where the only acceptable response for the accused was to admit guilt and throw him- or herself on the mercy of the court.

Serious historians paint a MUCH different picture of the Inquisition than the common image of red-robed priests with murder in their hearts and the blood of millions on their hands, and we as intelligent (I hope) human beings owe it to ourselves and to history to pay attention to the true facts of the case and not to sensationalism. The priests of the Inquisition were for the most part good people who tried to do a phenominally difficult job with a modicum of fairness at a time and in a place where unfairness was commonplace, and for that they deserve credit.

[Zoink]

The Inquisition was the institution that brought modern ideas of a "fair trial" to Spain...they WERE allowed to hear and refute the evidence against them and to plead their case, which was a MASSIVE improvement over previous court systems

This is all fine and dandy, Spain improved their court system, yippee. But are you trying to saying that Spain (and others) didn't try, convict, and execute people for belonging to non-Christian religions?

The victims may have had the opertunity to prove that they were Christians.... but can you see the problem with that? If I belonged to one of the old "pagan" religions, I'd have to lie, and prove I was Christian. Saying "I'm a warlock, and there's nothing wrong with that" gets me sent for 're-education' (before being burned).

The fact that there system was really good at ensuring good little Christians didn't get accidently executed.... doesn't really mean much.

[Iceberg]

What did I just say about intelligent people paying attention to FACTS and not sensationalistic bullshit?

[Darth Wong]

What did I just say about intelligent people paying attention to FACTS and not sensationalistic bullshit?

Mind you, your apologist explanations go much too far the other way, into the realm of pure historical whitewash. The implements, methods, and results of horrific medieval Christian torture techniques were very well documented, as was the Catholic Pope's official decree that his followers should fan out into the world and proceed to subjugate and enslave followers of all other religions.

Christian apologists need to take a cold splash of reality and learn to deal with the past rather than trying to cover it up or rewrite it. Yes, the Christian church was not solely responsible for everything bad that happened in the Dark Ages. However, that does not change the fact that it was the largest single contributor. May I remind you that the Catholic Church documented many such calls to commit atrocities? Need I remind you that the Pope officially sanctioned the use of torture in obtaining confessions, and that this decree was not reversed until the early twentieth century? Need I remind you that the Dark Ages were not a global phenomenon, but rather, a phenomenon restricted to the European Christian nations? Need I remind you of the God-praising proclamation read aloud to all Native Americans prior to their brutal subjugation at the hands of Christian conquerors? This is not "sensationalism", much as you would apparently like to label it as such.

The Catholic Church's own records uphold the "common knowledge" interpretation that you would seek to portray as ignorant and misleading. Is that part of this big conspiracy of slander too?

As for the Spanish Inquisition, the defense being put forward here is the silliest thing I've ever heard. It heralded the idea of the "fair trial"? Since when is it "fair" to face trial at all for having the "wrong" beliefs? The very notion of a "fair trial" for having heretical beliefs is a self-contradiction. Justice starts first and foremost with the punishment fitting the crime, and any punishment beyond public criticism is inherently unfair for a victimless crime such as heresy.

[Durandal]

Am I the only one who finds this "Oh woe is to be a Christian these days" stuff utterly nonsensical and laughable?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Christianity gets frequently bashed by nonreligious people because they have a legitimate complaint?

I remember reading an article in TIME, I think it was, about a public university refusing to allow a Christian rock group to hold a concert with the use of university facilities, and all the fans of the group and the group themselves began whining that they were being "persecuted" because of their beliefs. That's not persecution. That's not allowing public facilities to contribute to religious exercise. In any case, Christians have a lot of balls complaining about persecution in any forum.

I'm not saying anything about you, personally, IceBerg (although you've had your moments), but your religion has been an unending source of despair, injustice and intolerance throughout history and through the present. When the ruling on the Pledge came out, who was it that protested? Christians and Jews. Who was it that added "under God" to the Pledge? Christians. Who was it that had the brilliant idea to imprison atheists solely for their beliefs during the McCarthy era? Christians. Who was it that said that atheists shouldn't be considered American citizens? A Christian. Who is it pushing the legislation to make tax money fund religious schooling? Christians. Who wanted to conduct a Holy Crusade on terrorism? A Christian. Get the picture?

Honestly, I don't care if Pat Robertson sits on his channel all day preaching anti-atheist crap. It's his free speech, and even idiots have the right to be heard. I start caring when people like him start pushing their religion into the government. The only religions that try to get their views governmentally endorsed are Christianity and to a lesser extent, Judaism.

So, excuse us for expressing our discomfort about being alienated and subtly persecuted every day of our lives by the government because of your religion. You personally may not be responsible, but your religion is. There is no other cause for the alienation of nonreligious Americans aside from Christianity.

This doesn't mean that there aren't good Christians out there (there are plenty; most of my best friends are believing and practicing Christians), but the beliefs sit there, unchanged and static, with the potential to be exploited, and no one does anything about it.

[Steve]

Well, I've also seen the statements of the Protestants of the age exaggerating the Spanish Inquisition's scope (which is most likely, considering the politics of the centuries during the Inquisition, which did not officially end until the 19th Century), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and I think Mark (Iceberg) was just refuting the scope of the Inquisition, not what it did (I can speak from personal experience that he does not believe there were no atrocities). As for the point on the trials, it was merely in the context of the court's operation and procedure, not on the actual crimes being prosecuted (Which were not "fair", obviously).

That, and the point on the trials... Well, Mark, I'm not sure why you brought that up, unless it was a very... strange way of pointing out a small silver lining within a very big and nasty cloud.

[Martin Blank]

As for the Spanish Inquisition, the defense being put forward here is the silliest thing I've ever heard. It heralded the idea of the "fair trial"? Since when is it "fair" to face trial at all for having the "wrong" beliefs? The very notion of a "fair trial" for having heretical beliefs is a self-contradiction. Justice starts first and foremost with the punishment fitting the crime, and any punishment beyond public criticism is inherently unfair for a victimless crime such as heresy.

Not that I'm defending persecution or prosecution on the basis of belief or religion, but Iceberg's words are not wholly without merit. I've seen a number of documentaries and read a few articles that mentioned that part of the reason for the Inquisition was to put a formal process to what had become a very nasty habit of mob justice, as overviewed here. It's difficult to argue that the possibility to either show one's beliefs to be consistent with church and civil law and evade punishment, or else to recant one's 'incorrect' beliefs and face prison time or even some torture, can be seen as vastly preferable to being set upon and brutally killed by a mob.

This same process involved, again as Iceberg mentioned, the opportunity for the accused to attempt to defend himself in some fashion, and while torture was approved there were strict limits on how long the torture could last. I can't find the specific time limit now (and I'm due to leave work in a moment anyway), but it was only a few minutes at a time, and as I recall could only be administered a set number of times. Not really fair, but at least there were rules to to which the Inquisitors were to adhere. I'm sure there were cases where they quietly ignored some rules, but for the most part, they were followed.

Incidentally, the Inquisition was formally ended by Papal Decree on July 15, 1834. The twentieth-century mention Darth Wong made may have referred to something else, such as an apology or some other acknowledgement, but the Inquisition itself had been over for decades by the turn of the century.

Edit: Minor grammar change

[Iceberg]

As for the Spanish Inquisition, the defense being put forward here is the silliest thing I've ever heard. It heralded the idea of the "fair trial"? Since when is it "fair" to face trial at all for having the "wrong" beliefs? The very notion of a "fair trial" for having heretical beliefs is a self-contradiction. Justice starts first and foremost with the punishment fitting the crime, and any punishment beyond public criticism is inherently unfair for a victimless crime such as heresy.

Perhaps not so silly when you consider the atmosphere of "public criticism" during the times in question.

Public criticism in the 11th through 15th centuries consisted of a mob of angry peasants carrying rocks and torches. It's sure as hell a lot more fair to have the chance to defend yourself in an orderly, controlled court than in the street in front of an angry mob who are two seconds from throwing rocks at you. In the court, chances were pretty damn good that you would either be found not guilty or sent home with some sort of penance to perform (on the order of several thousand to one in favor of going home alive). It was a better shot overall than taking your chances in front of the angry peasants.

[Mr Bean]

So instead of the 20,000 to one chance of escaping the *Mob justice instead I get a 7000 to one chane of escaping a fixed court justice


You know Witchs where given Trials to and they had about the same success rate as the victums of the Inquestition

[Iceberg]

So instead of the 20,000 to one chance of escaping the *Mob justice instead I get a 7000 to one chane of escaping a fixed court justice

Um, no. You had about a one in one chance of dying in front of a mob, versus a roughly one in 3,000 to one in 4,000 chance of dying in front of the Inquisition. Sounds like a much fairer shake to me, overall.

You know Witchs where given Trials to and they had about the same success rate as the victums of the Inquestition

The English executed more people in the year 1564 for the 'crime' of witchcraft than the Inquisition executed over 400 years. That's a most enlightening comparison, I think...

[Mr Bean]

I said 4000 to 1 you say one in 4000

Realy did they try all of Bloody Spain?

Did the have 40,000 Trials and only ten people where killed? The rest all set free or somthing?

The English executed more people in the year 1564 for the 'crime' of witchcraft than the Inquisition executed over 400 years. That's a most enlightening comparison, I think...

Point Concideded

[Steve]

[quote="Mr Bean"]I said 4000 to 1 you say one in 4000

Realy did they try all of Bloody Spain?

Did the have 40,000 Trials and only ten people where killed? The rest all set free or somthing

No, I think he was using an odds assortment, perhaps a bit stretched, but then again the Inquisition did last for over three centuries.

[Iceberg]

I said 4000 to 1 you say one in 4000

Realy did they try all of Bloody Spain?

Did the have 40,000 Trials and only ten people where killed? The rest all set free or somthing?

There were some several million Inquisitorial trials over a period of about four centuries, resulting in about 4,000 executions. That comes out to around 10 executions a year.

[Mr Bean]

And Impressenments? Detentions? How long did it take for them to come to Trial

[Martin Blank]

There were some several million Inquisitorial trials over a period of about four centuries, resulting in about 4,000 executions. That comes out to around 10 executions a year.

Half of those came during Torquemada's term. He and his courts sentenced about 2000 people to death over the course of about 15 years. This suggests, assuming your numbers are true (no reason for me to believe that they're not, but a pointer to some aggregate statistics would be helpful), that the other Inquisition courts were either less zealous or more merciful than those of Spain during the early years.

[Darth Wong]

Who cares whether the Inquisition was worse than the Crusades or the Witch Hunts?

In case somebody forgot to notice, all of these events were committed by Christians, and not coincidentally but as a direct result of their beliefs. That was the original point, before people started trying to hijack it into "the Inquisition wasn't as bad as the other Christian atrocities".

[Martin Blank]

Though the atrocities mentioned certainly cannot be forgotten, let us also not forget that various people and agencies, working with religious guidelines, have also done much good in the world. The late Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity are among the best-known, but many other organizations do a great deal of good around the world and are less well-known. A Christian group in the Sudan purchases the contracts of slaves (Christian and not) in order to repatriate them with their families, and the Salvation Army works worldwide to help the needy and is not particularly forceful about its beliefs.

The past actions of many religions should be viewed against what those religions have become today. Yes, many of them are still divisive, intolerant, and non-inclusive, but these are generally the exception and not the norm. Admitting the past is one way to aid in healing the present and future, and while some groups still have long distances to go, the fact that even the Catholic Church is opening up and nearing (sometimes even giving) apologies for past crimes is an enormous step in the right direction.