Blaming Religion For the fault of Humanity. A Cop Out?

[Darth Wong]

In context, I believe he was saying that it's bullshit to blame human nature rather than religion for the acts of an Islamic terrorist with explicitly stated religious motivations. What's wrong with that?

Well True, But Also Alot of their (or at least their followers) are more pissed off at US foreign Policy in the Mideast and their Foolish, pointless, defense of Israel. Bin Laden is just captalizing on their calamity and anger, Just as a Cult Leader (i.e. David Koresh) does. Personally Religion does have some responsibility in atrocities (a small but very important role), but a stronger part is formed by how Humans first preceived each other. Europeans saw Africans and Native Americans as dirty savages (who lived like animals in their eyes) because of how they lived and the technological gaps between them. Eventually the European Religion would come into play in the persecution of these people.

Human behaviour is complex, and no action can be solely blamed on any one factor. However, having said that, we still do assign blame for things, and this is perfectly reasonable since we must try to discourage factors which contribute toward socially destructive behaviours.

So, the question is not: was religion the only cause of terrorism, or even the acts of an individual terrorist, but rather: without the religious influence, would this terrorist have done what he did? Or, to put it another way, without the imaginary incentive of 72 virgins waiting for him after death, what atheist would fly an aircraft into the side of a building? And since it can be shown that the addition of a single factor altered the decision-making process and made it possible to commit this act, why should we not blame that factor for the act, or minimize its responsibility?

[Coyote]

Religion is one of many tools used to motivate people into atrocities. And when something about a particular religion is inconvenient at the time, then it gets ignored. The parts of the Torah, New Testament, and the Qur'An that talk about being nice to one another are paved over when it comes time to do some nasty to the neighbors.

In the Islamic call for a "Jihad", for example, the calling of a Jihad is a religious decree, a "Fatwa". A Fatwa can only be declared, legally, by a Mufti (Islamic overseer of a religious place); a Qadi (a learned judge of Islamic Shar'ia or religious law); or a recognized Leader of an Islamic State. When issuing a call to Jihad, as long as some Muslims respond to the call then the honor of all is preserved but if no Muslims respond then all are dishonored.

And Osama bin-Laden? He is none of these things, neither Qadi, Mufti, or Leader-- he was hailed officially by his Taliban hosts as a "Warrior Merchant Prince" and I'd theorize that this gives him no official status to call a Fatwa. But 3,030 people died anyway, because they hate the West enough to overlook their own religion.

And they hate the West in general-- the US is simply the meatiest target. The attack on the French oil tanker in Yemen recently was likely an al-Qaeda operation; and if anything the anti-Semitic French kiss Arab ass like an overeager fratboy with his first whore.

[Durandal]

Even attempting to fix problems is wishful thinking, especially the problems that humanity currently faces. BTW that's a poor analogy to use.

No, attempting to fix the problem is striving for a better world, and the analogy is quite valid. If you disagree, please explain why it is flawed; don't simply make proclamations.

Well this clearly shows that you don't tolerate any Religion at all. That's your opinion.

Non-sequiter. I tolerate religion just fine. If I was intolerant of religion, I would be actively trying to wipe it out, rather than simply identifying it as the cause of massively unspeakable evil.

Actually, in retrospect, I can see that the statement I made could easily be interpreted as intolerant, so I'll retract it, and leave it at this: I think that religion is emphasized entirely too much, and its worth to society is extremely exaggerated.

Name some, and I'll show you how evil was actually spawned from humans and was sanctioned by Religion. (after making modifications)

The Inquisitions were the result of religious intolerance and fanaticism. If Christianity didn't demand that everyone be converted lest they go to Hell and instead instructed followers to live amicably with those of other faiths, they would not have taken place. Your reasoning is overly simplistic. Of course humans are the ultimate cause of all evil. However, what allows them to more easily exercise evil intentions? Religion is one thing.

Yes Because, most of the Mideast's hatred of America stems from the inconsistent US policies there. Have you heard of the Iran/Iraq wars. Or the US foolish, pointless defense of Israel. Those are the root causes for their hatred of the US and the west, and b/c the west has laid waste to everything there. Religion only came into play when Bin Landen needed followers and stooges to do his dirty work. Do you think He would have Volunteered to have been on those Jets. Hell no he wouldn't. In fact if he really was a holy man (not to say that he isn't) he would have died for his cause, but he's nothing but a pathetic, billionaire who is twisting a Religion to his desire and using that distortion to get disillusioned people to be his followers, he not that much different from David Koresh(sp).

So, you're saying that bin Laden doesn't believe in Islam? That's preposterous. I'll say again, if he was a secular humanist, he wouldn't be ramming planes into buildings. Since he's a Muslim fanatic, he is.

Granted, the fact that the US funds Palestinian oppressors with billions of dollars is a pretty major cause as well, but that doesn't excuse religion's role in terrorism.

Personally I would go with the former. Religion was supposed to be a good thing, but it was just corrupted, Henry the VIII did when He wanted a divorce, He created the Church of England (Anglican).

Explain how Judaism was originally a "good thing" when it instructed its followers to mercilessly butcher everyone of another religion.

How else would you explain why there are so many sects of so many different Religions? It's B/c man shapes religion and not the other way around. Your belief of merely allows humans to excuse ourselves for the atrocities committed, and blame it entirely on Religion (or a huge bulk of it).

Strawman. My belief is that religion has driven people to commit unspeakable acts of terror, which is absolutely correct. Let's suppose that bin Laden thinks that Islam is bullshit and all he wants is power for a second. The people most directly responsible still fervently believed that they'd go to Heaven and be greeted by virgins with legs wide open for their suicide. Had they not held that belief, they would have been far less likely to do what they did.

Thats foolishly irresponsible, and if we do that were are only gonna miss the real reason why.

That's your theory then? Humans are mean? As I said before, no shit Sherlock. What mechanisms make it easier for humans to commit evil? Religion is certainly a big one.
Again, you're reasoning is dreadfully simplistic. Suppose a terrorist drops a nuclear weapon on a city. According to you, we simply sit back and say, "Well, we shouldn't regulate nuclear weapons because he would have found a way to kill all those people, anyway."

Here's the fundamental disagreement between you and I. You're looking at the ultimate cause for all evil. I'm looking at the actual tools that can be used to perform evil acts. My approach is more useful. If we simply throw our arms up and say, "Well, people are jerks," then the only reasonable solution would be to kill everyone! My approach allows us to zero in on things that make it easier for people to do evil and minimize their ability to commit evil acts.

(Did Stalin Kill 20 millionof his own people b/c he was religious?)

Red herring. I never claimed that religion was the cause of all evil, just a damn good portion of it.

However, this does not change the fact that certain religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) can very easily be used to empower evil men, and were in fact created for that exact purpose.

You choose religion b/c you think it is the most convienient way to solve a problem, It is certainly not. We have corrupted science, just as much as we've corrupted religion and Government.

Why isn't it? Religion empowers evil men, and it was created with the desire for power in mind. Judaism, Christianity and Islam weren't "corrupted"; they were that way from the start.

How have humans "corrupted science"? When has science been used to justify a massive atrocity? Science simply describes the universe; it doesn't make demands of humans.

Humans have faults, that's why there are atrocities being committed. If you think throwing away religion will end it then you have blinders to the world.

I never claimed that throwing religion out the window would end all evil. I claimed that throwing it away would result in less evil. Please try and make the distinction. If Judaism, Christianity and Islam were wiped off the face of the planet, there would be no conflict in the Middle East, Islamic terrorism or Ku Klux Klan, all of which are undeniably evil.

Well who the fuck was asking for instant bliss!?!?! I'm not nor have I stated that in my posts. And even if you stop all religion from existing, do you think that bliss will shoot up out of nowhere? No, not only is that wishful thinking but that's just plain stupid.

Of course it is; that's why I'm not making that claim. Please try and comprehend what I write. Nowhere do I claim that getting rid of religion is a cure-all for all the evil in the world, but it would certainly reduce the amount of evil in the world.

Once Again your wrong, It's (the worst of)human nature that warped Religion to their own eveil deeds and not the other way around, come on man, Humans aren't so pathetic as you describe them.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism were never "warped" into evil entities; they started out that way.

Man altered Religion, man sought to control the masses, and man committed all those atrocities.

Cart before the horse. Religion does not exist without men. Saying that they warped it to control the masses when in fact it was created with that purpose in mind is simply ass-backward.

It seem that you are on a crusade to end religion, well you can't do that b/c you are gonna come along people who are gonna resist and reject your notions. What are you gonna do about them? Hmmm? Commit an atrocity?

The last time I checked, I was sitting in my dorm room talking about how to make the world a better place, not riding around on a horse burning down churches and temples. Granted, I'd like to see religion simply go away and make room for rational thinking and science, and I'll certainly dance a drunken jig on the grave of Christianity if it ever dies in my lifetime.

Point conceded. I'll just say that you should have been more specific in differentiating Islam and Islam terrorists.

The terrorists are Muslims. Saying that Muslims rammed planes into buildings isn't a sweeping accusation of all Muslims; it's a simple statement of fact.

Not exactly, what about "Thou Salt not Judge others", they judge people on a daily basis. Plain and simple, the Bible is a massive contradiction of the word of God written By man, that's why I don't really like to use it as a source.

Why can't God write for himself? Is he illiterate?

Of course it is, it was written by man. Oh and i Have read the Bible on many occassions, don't attack my credibilty on the Bible that's just stupid especially if your ignorant to the fact that I have read and understood it many times. Again, I ask you NOT TO FLAME ME it's really childish and takes away from my thread. The ONly reason I Wrote an Aggresive response is b/c of your unecessarily hostile post. If You do it again I won't even dignify it with a response.

Style over substance fallacy. If you don't like flames, then I'd suggest leaving this board, because any topic involving religion and terror is bound to stir up strong feelings. Aside from that, my flames have been mild, never exceeding the level of simple sarcasm.

In context, I believe he was saying that it's bullshit to blame human nature rather than religion for the acts of an Islamic terrorist with explicitly stated religious motivations. What's wrong with that?

Actually, THEHOOLIGANJEDI nailed it. I do think the concept of one, overbearing nature for humans is bullshit, hence my reluctance to hold it to blame for all evil actions, especially when THEHOOLIGANJEDI mentions things like "the worst of human nature," which implies inconsistency with what he's led us to believe human nature is ... kind of.

Why can't these "human nature" people simply admit that some humans are evil and some are good, with no set of universal laws to govern their behavior? So far, no one has met my challenge to supply a concrete definition of human nature.

In fact, I'll make a more specific challenge. Give a definition of human nature that all evil can be traced back to.

[THEHOOLIGANJEDI]

Before I respond to your thread, the Only reason why I don't want any flaming b/c when I came up with this thread I wanted to read opinions on what I brought up and get a general feeling on this matter. Althought I forgot to put my disclaimer up about how I will not tolerate Flaming. I didn't want it here because I didn't want to cheapen the integrity of this particular thread, I could care less about some of the other threads I put up. But I don't want it here, I just preferred a more mature cordial thread.

Now Durandel, There is Little point in both of us arguing any further. Were both too conflicting and all we are trying to do is trying to convince each other that were right, which is pointless.

No, attempting to fix the problem is striving for a better world, and the analogy is quite valid. If you disagree, please explain why it is flawed; don't simply make proclamations.

True, but it's gonna take a long, long time to fix the problems of man, maybe centuries. It'll take probably less that time to find out the problem. But saying it's religion is the easy answer. As for your analogy, it's flawed in the sense that in a trial you have a suspect (or suspects), you have evidence that ties those suspects to the crime. It is the Jury's job to convict or exhonerate a suspect.

Non-sequiter. I tolerate religion just fine. If I was intolerant of religion, I would be actively trying to wipe it out, rather than simply identifying it as the cause of massively unspeakable evil.

Actually, in retrospect, I can see that the statement I made could easily be interpreted as intolerant, so I'll retract it, and leave it at this: I think that religion is emphasized entirely too much, and its worth to society is extremely exaggerated.

Okay You cleared that up. b/c it did reak of intolerance. But Religion has HELPED established many of the lew and moral standards we have, and has done the opposite too. You gotta understand I'm not putting Religion off the Hook, but without any preestablised hatred and fear.

So, you're saying that bin Laden doesn't believe in Islam? That's preposterous. I'll say again, if he was a secular humanist, he wouldn't be ramming planes into buildings. Since he's a Muslim fanatic, he is.

Granted, the fact that the US funds Palestinian oppressors with billions of dollars is a pretty major cause as well, but that doesn't excuse religion's role in terrorism.

I didn't say he didn't believe in Islam, If you read my post more objectively you would have seen that. I compared him to Daivd Koresh, b/c Bin Laden's methods mirror cult leaders. But any non Religious person would have done something similar, if not the same thing to further their cause against a powerful enemy.

Well I'll continue my response at a later time I'm pretty busy at the moment.

[Darth Wong]

But any non Religious person would have done something similar, if not the same thing to further their cause against a powerful enemy.

Except that in many cases (including the one under discussion), the religion is the cause. Take away the religion, and there is no cause to fight for, hence no reason to commit terrorist acts. That's the whole point!

Osams uses Palestine as a recruiting tool, but that's not his real beef and you know it. His real beef is infidels on the "Holy Land". Why on Earth should we assume that if you took this guy's religion away, he would still want to commit the same acts of violence?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

But any non Religious person would have done something similar, if not the same thing to further their cause against a powerful enemy.

Except that in many cases (including the one under discussion), the religion is the cause. Take away the religion, and there is no cause to fight for, hence no reason to commit terrorist acts. That's the whole point!

Osams uses Palestine as a recruiting tool, but that's not his real beef and you know it. His real beef is infidels on the "Holy Land". Why on Earth should we assume that if you took this guy's religion away, he would still want to commit the same acts of violence?

Because not all Muslims are terrorists. Yes, his religion is his excuse, but take that away, and odds are he'd just find another excuse.

[Darth Wong]

For the same reason that he's come to be famous -- he gives every indication of being a warmonger. Yes, his religion is his excuse, but take that away, and odds are he'd just find another excuse.

And you know this because ... ?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Sorry, I put in a last-minute edit. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

I don't know how to explain this idea clearly; I may very well fuck this up completely. But here goes: There are a handful of excuses humans have historically used to justify slaughtering each other. There are only two reasons, when you boil it all down: "We're better than them," or "We want their shit." Religion mainly falls into the first category, but can also be used to justify the second. Politics works in a similar way. OBL could just as easily be racist as a religious nut. He's basically no different from David Koresh, but I'd hardly say Koresh was motivated as much be religion as megalomania and greed. Same with bin-Laden.

EDIT: Basically, from what I understand, religion is a tool of human atrocity, not its true motivator.

[Darth Wong]

Basically, from what I understand, religion is a tool of human atrocity, not its true motivator.

Chicken-and-egg syndrome. You can always argue both; the point remains that certain acts of intolerance have been historically correlated with certain religions. If religion is the symptom of underlying universal behaviour rather than a cause, then explain the coincidence.

[Darth Wong]

By way of expansion, if I didn't make myself clear: the triumvirate of intolerance (Judeo-Christian-Islam) has a long and sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of religion. Why is this not true of all cultures and religions, if it stems from basic human instinct rather than the specifics of those particular religions?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

By way of expansion, if I didn't make myself clear: the triumvirate of intolerance (Judeo-Christian-Islam) has a long and sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of religion. Why is this not true of all cultures and religions, if it stems from basic human instinct rather than the specifics of those particular religions?

Simple answer? More Judeo-Christians/Muslims=more sociopathic assholes pulling sociopathic shit in the name of Middle-Eastern religions.

EDIT: Violent people gravitate toward violent religions. Shinto, for example, is less effective as an excuse for shitty behavior.

[Darth Wong]

Simple answer? More Judeo-Christians/Muslims=more sociopathic assholes pulling sociopathic shit in the name of Middle-Eastern religions.

You still haven't explained why you feel the religion is a symptom rather than a cause. You simply keep stating it as a premise.

EDIT: Violent people gravitate toward violent religions. Shinto, for example, is less effective as an excuse for shitty behavior.

So you concede that certain religions lead to more violence. Ergo, the removal of certain religions would reduce violence. Ergo, we're right; the problem is the damned religion.

[Durandal]

Before I respond to your thread, the Only reason why I don't want any flaming b/c when I came up with this thread I wanted to read opinions on what I brought up and get a general feeling on this matter. Althought I forgot to put my disclaimer up about how I will not tolerate Flaming. I didn't want it here because I didn't want to cheapen the integrity of this particular thread, I could care less about some of the other threads I put up. But I don't want it here, I just preferred a more mature cordial thread.

I don't care if you'll tolerate flaming or not. If you bow out of the debate on the grounds that I'm being a poopy-head, then I'll happily declare victory because of your use of the style over substance fallacy.

Now Durandel, There is Little point in both of us arguing any further. Were both too conflicting and all we are trying to do is trying to convince each other that were right, which is pointless.

I've outlined the fundamental differences in our respective approaches. Your conclusion is simplistic, and it is completely useless toward the end of minimizing the problem of terrorism. Useful information can be gleaned from my conclusion to that end. Neither of us is wrong, but your conclusions are simply useless.

True, but it's gonna take a long, long time to fix the problems of man, maybe centuries. It'll take probably less that time to find out the problem. But saying it's religion is the easy answer.

And blaming it on this nondescript, undefined, completely ambiguous thing you call "human nature" isn't? Just because my answer is more useful than yours doesn't mean that it's somehow a copout. I've identified an easily observable and verifiable cause for terrorism. It isn't the only cause, but it is a big one.

Acts of terror by Muslims can be very easily traced back to their religious beliefs, so religion must play a significant role in their actions. This is very simple reasoning that you and others in this country are dismissing because you work from the assumption that religion must be inherently good, so any evil that results from it must be the result of men "perverting" it. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

As for your analogy, it's flawed in the sense that in a trial you have a suspect (or suspects), you have evidence that ties those suspects to the crime. It is the Jury's job to convict or exhonerate a suspect.

And what do you think we're doing here? We're putting religion on trial, and I'm tying it to acts of terror.

Okay You cleared that up. b/c it did reak of intolerance. But Religion has HELPED established many of the lew and moral standards we have, and has done the opposite too.

Religion helped establish basic rules in certain parts of the world, like laws regarding murder, theft, et cetera, but these concepts are not exclusive to religion. Confucius came up with similar concepts without any professed divine aid.

Furthermore, our modern concept of morality -- which shuns murderous acts in the name of one's religion, something the Big Three don't do in their holy books -- comes from the basic assumption that all humans have rights, and killing someone without legitimate, objective reason (self-defense) is a violation of their right to live their life to its natural end. Islam teaches that murder is wrong because God said so, but if God tells you it's okay, you can go and murder someone. Ditto for Judaism and Christianity. All their holy books contain these messages.

You gotta understand I'm not putting Religion off the Hook, but without any preestablised hatred and fear.

That's precisely what you're doing. You explicitly stated that religion started out as something good, with absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion, and mountains of evidence to refute it.

I didn't say he didn't believe in Islam, If you read my post more objectively you would have seen that. I compared him to Daivd Koresh, b/c Bin Laden's methods mirror cult leaders. But any non Religious person would have done something similar, if not the same thing to further their cause against a powerful enemy.

Really? So, since I virulently disagree with the United States' current pandering to and elevating of religion, I'm all set to go and ram a plane into the White House?

You're dangerously close to saying that morality can only exist with religion, but doesn't necessarily have to, while ascribing immorality automatically to nonreligious people. If bin Laden was a secular humanist, he certainly would not have commissioned people to fly planes into buildings right off the bat; he would have been more reasonable, bringing his case to the United Nations. If the people he got to fly the planes were secular humanists, they probably would not have done what they did, because secular humanism promises no eternal reward for mass murder.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's look at this from a new angle: suppose you have two LEGAL SYSTEMS (not religions). One of them contains legal code which can and has been interpreted to permit murder of homosexuals. The other does not.

Now, you could say that when someone living under legal system #1 kills a homosexual, he does it because of his innate homophobia, not because of the legal system. But you must also concede that he probably wouldn't do it under legal system #2. So why do you exonerate legal system #1?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Simple answer? More Judeo-Christians/Muslims=more sociopathic assholes pulling sociopathic shit in the name of Middle-Eastern religions.

You still haven't explained why you feel the religion is a symptom rather than a cause. You simply keep stating it as a premise.

EDIT: Violent people gravitate toward violent religions. Shinto, for example, is less effective as an excuse for shitty behavior.

So you concede that certain religions lead to more violence. Ergo, the removal of certain religions would reduce violence. Ergo, we're right; the problem is the damned religion.

I do concede that certain religions attract violent personalities; however, I am uncomfortable with repression of religion as a solution to the problem unless it is the only viable solution.

On further consideration, I can understand how religious indoctrination toward violence frees violent people from inhibition against pursuing their natural tendencies, although I don't agree that any religion can instill those tendencies into a person who would not otherwise have them.

EDIT: I'll try to prevent any more run-on sentences in the future.

[Darth Wong]

I do concede that certain religions attract violent personalities; however, I am uncomfortable with repression of religion as a solution to the problem unless it is the only viable solution.

According to the Globe and Mail, one of the major Islamic leaders' (I wish I could remember his name) response to questions about how to prevent another terrorist attack like the WTC attack or the Bali bombing was: "Join Islam". And I've read the Koran; if religion were not a sacred cow, it would be classified as hate literature and banned by all countries which have hate-literature laws.

On further consideration, I can understand how religious indoctrination toward violence frees violent people from inhibition against pursuing their natural tendencies, although I don't agree that any religion can instill those tendencies into a person who would not otherwise have them.

Not even if it teaches them from childhood that people of other religions are lower than dirt and that merely allowing them to speak in your presence may pollute your mind, and particularly that of your children?

Sorry, but intolerant teachings produce intolerant people. The Bible teaches intolerance. Some choose to disregard it, but it's indisputably there.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Oh, I'll readily agree that it's there. I suppose then that we should find it impressive that there are religious people who don't stoop to acts of violence or bigotry. Of course, these are "Christians" in a very loose sense, since they generally don't subscribe to Christianity as practiced by any church, but prefer (mercifully) to keep their relationship with their god a personal one. They're the ones to whom should be extended some measure of acceptance, at least in my opinion.

EDIT: I seem to have gone slightly Off-Topic, and for that I apologize. My solution to Terrorism is simple: as long as it doesn't involve us, there's no need for us to involve ourselves. However, since the U.S. is already involved, my recommendation is to withdraw from the crossfire. Whoever tries to drag us back in through political maneuvering should receive a polite but firm negative answer. Whoever tries to drag us back in through terrorism should receive a quick and forceful reply of ordnance.)

[Durandal]

They've taken secular values and held them higher than their religion's teachings, so good on them. That does not change the fact that the Bible and the Qua'ran readily preach intolerance and hate.

Honestly, for those moderate Christians, converting to complete secularism wouldn't be much of a change. One could make the argument that moderate Christians are heretics because they've supplanted Biblical law with secular law on the grounds that "God's law is higher than Man's law."

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

OT: I suppose in that respect I am similar to a moderate Christian, although I personally despise Christianity's history as it obliterated huge chunks of every culture it touched. I do believe in something, but that's between me and whatever-it-is. Unless it comes up, for the most part it's nobody else's business.

[Coyote]

But while many here are saying that religion is not the only tool of intolerance and atrocity, just one of the major ones, we can look at the body count of non-religious philosophies, including one of the biggest fads of the last century such as Communism.

Communism is devoted to ending religion, for precisely the reason we have been talking about: it is intolerant and dumbs down the masses. The ideas behind Marxist/Leninist thought is one of secular humanism, that the masses work for the benefit of the community and that each person contributes what he or she can and no more is forced from him, and each gets what is needed and takes no more from the rest. Religion would vanish in the dust of history.

The cost of this secularist viewpoint?
China, 65 million deaths; Soviet Union 20 million; Cambodia, 2 million; Africa 1.7 mil.; Afghanistan 1.5 mil.; Vietnam, 1 mil.; Eastern Europe 1 million and Latin America 150,000.
So a total of 94.35 million deaths* in one century for those who would end religion and replace it with a secular work ethic. Many would argue "But the ideals of true Communism were left unfulfilled, it was mis-interpreted and used wrongly by selfish dictatoors who sought power". But is that any different from the defense of religion as "a good idea twisted and made wrong?"

My point here is not that 'religion=good; secular=bad' but just that if there is a way that a good idea (political, philosophical, or religious) can be harnessed for evil, it will be. And while many people are good there is also a propensity for people to be led and have the hard things left to charismatic types who promise to fix everything by spouting adherance to these philosophies. The root of human problems is a many-tangled thing.

*"Le Nivre noir du Communisme: Crimes, terreur, repression" numbers reprinted in Brian Crozier's "Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire", 1999-2000.

[Darth Wong]

But while many here are saying that religion is not the only tool of intolerance and atrocity, just one of the major ones, we can look at the body count of non-religious philosophies, including one of the biggest fads of the last century such as Communism.

Communism is a non-supernatural religion. It worships the Party. It appeals to authority. It reveres its prophet (Marx). It disregards human rights.

Communism is devoted to ending religion, for precisely the reason we have been talking about: it is intolerant and dumbs down the masses. The ideas behind Marxist/Leninist thought is one of secular humanism

Wrong. Secular humanism is based on human rights. Communism removes most human rights.

The cost of this secularist viewpoint?
China, 65 million deaths; Soviet Union 20 million; Cambodia, 2 million; Africa 1.7 mil.; Afghanistan 1.5 mil.; Vietnam, 1 mil.; Eastern Europe 1 million and Latin America 150,000.

Bullshit. Secularism is separation of church and state. Communism seeks to replace other religions with its own. There is a huge difference.

You obviously assume that any atheistic philosophy is secular humanism by default; are you deliberately trying to be ignorant?

[Durandal]

The big difference between communism and religion is a legitimate argument can be made for saying that communism was twisted.

Furthermore, nothing in communism is even remotely connected with secular humanism, as secular humanism is based on inalienable rights. There are no precepts in communism recognizing such ideas, as far as I'm aware.

[Coyote]

You obviously assume that any atheistic philosophy is secular humanism by default; are you deliberately trying to be ignorant?

Of course not; I was examining Marxism's stated viewpoints regarding religion and its validity. Marxism specifically describes religion as an "opiate" for humanity, making the masses stupid and dependent on certain leaders. Marx would not, of course, admit that Communism was going to do precisely the same thing but within a non-theological framework.

The Communist appeal of "Peace, Bread, Land" was aimed at people under the rule of a tyrant overlord (be it capitalist boss, religious buffoon, etc) and served as a counterpoint to the image of the worker with "nothing to lose but his chains". This is an appeal to improving rights for the worker. Everyone was a worker or provider of some sort; so improving the lot of the workers was improving rights for all.

The fact that it is non-supernatural in origin was precisely one of Marx's pillars of credibility. The Sovet system turned it into a state religion beyond normal nationalist or patriotic bounds. As I said, there was a big difference between the way the philosphy was marketed and the way it ended up in practice.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

OK, let's look at this from a new angle: suppose you have two LEGAL SYSTEMS (not religions). One of them contains legal code which can and has been interpreted to permit murder of homosexuals. The other does not.

Now, you could say that when someone living under legal system #1 kills a homosexual, he does it because of his innate homophobia, not because of the legal system. But you must also concede that he probably wouldn't do it under legal system #2. So why do you exonerate legal system #1?

I don't -- but I would also note that the same murderer may commit the same crime under System #2. Permissiveness is not always incentive. Catholicism, for example, preaches abstinence, IIRC. Yet the legend of the Slutty Catholic Girl has arisen despite this. (One of my exes was Catholic. I will say this for her; she was "pure" when I met her...)

[Durandal]

The fact that it is non-supernatural in origin was precisely one of Marx's pillars of credibility. The Sovet system turned it into a state religion beyond normal nationalist or patriotic bounds. As I said, there was a big difference between the way the philosphy was marketed and the way it ended up in practice.

Which is precisely why it isn't analogous to this situation. Islam, Christianity and Judaism marketed intolerance, and they practice it, as well.