"You can't blame religion for religious people"

[Ryushikaze]

Has anyone ever had this apologism thrust upon them? I find myself running into it rather often recently (largely from a small contingent at another message board) and it has begun to greatly irritate me, especially since the most recent example came in a thread that someone had written as a personal therapy explaining why he thought as he did about religion, detailing the abuses he and his sisters had suffered from his deranged and religious father (including molstation and other lesser but more frequent abuses). A lot of the thread was supportive, but then came Bippypoo (yeah. Him.)

Well religon can be VERY inclusivist as well. The churches (imo) have failed to observe the inclucivism stressed in Jesus' teachings. They tend to stress 'No man goes onto the father except through me!' way to much. Does that mean that Jesus seriously needs to have a room in the motel 8 called your hear?? Doubt it.

Above is just one example of the morphing of my religon. It was to happen, and the writing was on the wall all over the NT. What pisses me off is the very inclusivist and hostile factor shared with Fantasy junkies father, the crusaders, and many other legions of Christian aggressors. Funny, is'nt it. The very religion that teaches to turn the other cheek, and to profess with love - breeds so many whom do quite the opposite.

I am sorry to here this Fantasyjunkie - though I find it harsh you blame Christianity. I can see the fact that you are sick of it (and rightfully so) but blaming said events on a religion that instructed your father to do otherwise seems to be a convinient excuse. Sorry to be harsh, but I cannot wrap my head arround the correlation that lies blame upon religion, when the liability falls soley on the hand of your father. This is the root of ignorant hate towards the Christian religion right here. These aggressors whom give us all a bad name.

I hope you find you answers, and your questions...

Bipper, in case you haven't read the debater thread in HOS, is an overly specific interpreter of the Bible, and a 'deny that problems or problematic passages exist' Christian.

And slightly off topic but related to apologism in general, immediately thereafter, another poster started talking about being persecuted for being christian

I am convinced that the majority of Christians believe in what they do is because they have faced no opposition in their beliefs, and even if they have, they will still continue to believe in whatever they believe. Very few actually ask questions.

I think you have the wrong imagae about Christianity. Being a Christian, I go through a lot of torment and persecution for my beliefs. People are always calling me a freaky christian guy, hurling insults at me, 'testing my faith', everything. But I just do what the bible tells me to do, and take it as my praise. (or something xDD.)

And with what I've noticed, Christians always question their faith. When I'm in conversations with my friends, youth leaders etc. We have conversations about Christianity, asking why this is, and why you don't believe it to be true (Usually they'll understand by the end. After all, it is the bible).

Although I do agree with you with the "and even if they have, they will still continue to believe in whatever they believe". Christians are usually very strong-minded people. Not much is gonna change their mind.

I'm really resisting the urge to ask him how he's managing to be tormented and persectuted for being in the majority, but I don't think I'll last all that long.

Basically, how often do you find yourselves coming across this sort of apologism and what sort of thing do you use to combat it in a way that might actually have a chance of getting the apologist to actually consider what you are saying?

Of course this does raise the question of how much should religion be held accountable for what its more esoteric members do, especially if what they do actually has a basis in their religious texts (if not necessarily actively preached)? They do claim to be a guide to life, after all.

[defanatic]

Break the ice by saying:
"Well, I can try!"

In all honesty, in two hundred years time, people will be saying they (contemporary christians) were getting it wrong, not interpreting right etc. Traditions, interpretations, and ideas change over time, and it will continue to do so. You are no more right than the church leaders of old.

[wolveraptor]

I think it would help if you more specifically presented the father's transgressions. If his crimes had basis in Biblical scripture (perhaps some of the harsh Leviticus rules), then you very well can blame the religion for at least some of his assholery. However, if his religiosity and sociopathy were somewhat independent of each other, the connection to Christianity would be more tenuous.

[CaptJodan]

Of course this does raise the question of how much should religion be held accountable for what its more esoteric members do, especially if what they do actually has a basis in their religious texts (if not necessarily actively preached)? They do claim to be a guide to life, after all.

I think in the context of a larger discussion, this is an interesting question, and one I wonder about myself. I've often come up against more moderate Christians AND Muslims that cite such things as the Bible or Koran being interperated incorrectly by those that are more extreme in their religion, yet the clear cut passages ARE there, guiding the way to a more proactive role in getting rid of undesireables.

In effect, how much of religion should be blamed for, say, 9/11, and how much of it is simply a good PR campaign and the ability of certain charismatic individuals to sway weak minded? Same question regarding christian fundementalists.

For example, the verse in the Bible speaking about cursing your parents and what your response should be could be used to justify beating your children into a bloody pulp.

I'd say that it takes a pre-existing derranged mind to "stone" or otherwise harm your own child in such a fashion. But for religion, such a passage may provide reinforcement for such behavior, and thus at least deserves SOME of the blame for the more extreme cases of violence, especially when such violence is actually done in the name of god. The degree of punishment for an offense may be directly related to the sanity of the individual. For example, a religious parent learns that her son or daughter is a homosexual, and has banged someone of the same sex. The good book says they can go so far as to kill both their own child and the person he or she had sex with, but this isn't the norm. A slightly more sane approach would be to disown the child. Or the parent could hate that part of the child's life, but still love the child, or even make it a non-issue altogether. Thus the reader's context for the passage becomes the deciding factor.

Ultimately, though, the Bible and the Koran set up prejudices against certain individuals which might otherwise not develop without the influence. And an organized religion takes that one step further by drilling those passages that are found most offensive into the person's head, reinforcing those beliefs. And that's where religion's responsibilty is strongest.

Incidentally, the fact that religion is so contradictory gives fundies the way out they always want. You can be cruel to gays and slap around your kid, but when someone calls you on it, saying your religion and god are cruel and immoral, they stab their fingers at the passages made by Jesus, and scream that their religion is all about love and forgiveness and accepting sinners. It's a nice setup. (a lot like the "I'm a little bit country" South Park ep.)

[Alyeska]

Blaming religion as a whole for the crimes of its members? No, you can't blame religion. You can make generalizations bassed on evidence, but as a whole you can't. Blaming religion as a whole the the same as blaming atheism for evil things, or blaming science, or blaming sports for making people into agressive jerks.

Religion is just another human institution

[wolveraptor]

I think he meant "blaming Christianity" when he says "blaming religion".

[Durandal]

Ask these people if you can blame Nazism for the Holocaust and see how strictly they adhere to this idiotic idea that systems of belief are completely blameless in the behavior of their followers.

[Darth Wong]

Do they blame Scientology for the behaviour of Tom Cruise? If so, then they admit that an ideology can be blamed for the behaviour of those who are motivated by it. If not, then what the fuck do they think is the real cause of his behaviour?

[Drooling Iguana]

Blaming religion as a whole for the crimes of its members? No, you can't blame religion. You can make generalizations bassed on evidence, but as a whole you can't. Blaming religion as a whole the the same as blaming atheism for evil things, or blaming science, or blaming sports for making people into agressive jerks.

Religion is just another human institution

A human institution that includes a code of behaviour that condones and sometimes even encourages despicable acts.

[wolveraptor]

Or, to be more of a generalist, discourages skepticism and rational thinking.

[Durandal]

Do they blame Scientology for the behaviour of Tom Cruise? If so, then they admit that an ideology can be blamed for the behaviour of those who are motivated by it. If not, then what the fuck do they think is the real cause of his behaviour?

Oh but Tom Cruise is just perverting the teachings of Scientology to justify his own insane behavior! Scientology is a religion of sanity!

Oh right, Scientology isn't over 500 years old, so it's not eligible for that kind of apologist nonsense yet.

[Ryushikaze]

I think it would help if you more specifically presented the father's transgressions. If his crimes had basis in Biblical scripture (perhaps some of the harsh Leviticus rules), then you very well can blame the religion for at least some of his assholery. However, if his religiosity and sociopathy were somewhat independent of each other, the connection to Christianity would be more tenuous.

It wasn't that the OP was presenting his father's crimes as rooted in religion- though he was quite fervent about whatever his beliefs were and forced them on his children, to the point of punching his son, the OP, in the face when he got fed up with his father's incessant force feeding and simply closed the book mid-session- but that the two apologists thought that defending their religion against an attack that wasn't even one- the OP mentioned he knew Christianity as a whole was not like his father's version, but that because of his father, he had been left with a particular impression of it- by claiming that one could not fault a religion for what people do in its name, and by discussing how they were persecuted.

I probably should have used different wording though. I don't think religions should be 'blamed' for violent acts any more so than video games should, but I believe that religions should be at least as self policing as video games, especially any religion that claims to be a single guiding principle for life, which people manage to interpret X number of ways.

The 'I get persecuted for being in the majority' kid just pissed me off though, and I really want to tell him off for it.

[Uraniun235]

Tom Cruise has clearly not yet cleared himself of body thetans. Obviously, he needs to give CoS more money.

[CaptJodan]

Blaming religion as a whole for the crimes of its members? No, you can't blame religion. You can make generalizations bassed on evidence, but as a whole you can't. Blaming religion as a whole the the same as blaming atheism for evil things, or blaming science, or blaming sports for making people into agressive jerks.

Religion is just another human institution

Atheism doesn't teach moral and ethical beliefs as such. Nor does science. Religion does.

You can and should blame a religion if the teachings of that religion helps to cause suffering to others. Once again, the homosexual issue being a prime example (but not the only one). The Bible IS the justification for homosexuality being wrong. As far as I know, it's one of the only justifications. Science tells us there is nothing inherantly wrong with homosexuality. Experience has taught most that homosexuals can be a moral group just like any other group in society.

In baseball, the ideal...what we are supposed to be taught is that you're to have fun playing. You're not supposed to be a sore winner and a sore loser. People still do it, but they're going against the ideal. In religion, especially Christianity and Islam, you are told that the ideal is to kill homosexuals (as, again, the example). You have to go AGAINST that ideal state in order to be a moral person. And I'm sorry, that means that religion does hold responsibilty for it's own asshattery. Especailly if it's used as justification for an idiot's actions.

[wolveraptor]

It wasn't that the OP was presenting his father's crimes as rooted in religion- though he was quite fervent about whatever his beliefs were and forced them on his children, to the point of punching his son, the OP, in the face when he got fed up with his father's incessant force feeding and simply closed the book mid-session- but that the two apologists thought that defending their religion against an attack that wasn't even one- the OP mentioned he knew Christianity as a whole was not like his father's version, but that because of his father, he had been left with a particular impression of it- by claiming that one could not fault a religion for what people do in its name, and by discussing how they were persecuted.

Wow, that's one of the lengthiest sentences I've ever seen.

So are you saying that the discussion about religion and its culpability came adventitiously?

[Alyeska]

Blaming religion as a whole for the crimes of its members? No, you can't blame religion. You can make generalizations bassed on evidence, but as a whole you can't. Blaming religion as a whole the the same as blaming atheism for evil things, or blaming science, or blaming sports for making people into agressive jerks.

Religion is just another human institution

Atheism doesn't teach moral and ethical beliefs as such. Nor does science. Religion does.

You can and should blame a religion if the teachings of that religion helps to cause suffering to others. Once again, the homosexual issue being a prime example (but not the only one). The Bible IS the justification for homosexuality being wrong. As far as I know, it's one of the only justifications. Science tells us there is nothing inherantly wrong with homosexuality. Experience has taught most that homosexuals can be a moral group just like any other group in society.

In baseball, the ideal...what we are supposed to be taught is that you're to have fun playing. You're not supposed to be a sore winner and a sore loser. People still do it, but they're going against the ideal. In religion, especially Christianity and Islam, you are told that the ideal is to kill homosexuals (as, again, the example). You have to go AGAINST that ideal state in order to be a moral person. And I'm sorry, that means that religion does hold responsibilty for it's own asshattery. Especailly if it's used as justification for an idiot's actions.

I can go so far as to blame some religions because their beliefs are about as evil as they become. But outright blame all religion as a whole, no. When Christians and Muslims can't even agree on their own religion and have dissenting views, the entire system is just too contradictory and irrelevent to outright blame. However, I will blame sects of those religions for actively encouraging dangerous or evil thought.

[Simplicius]

I can go so far as to blame some religions because their beliefs are about as evil as they become. But outright blame all religion as a whole, no. When Christians and Muslims can't even agree on their own religion and have dissenting views, the entire system is just too contradictory and irrelevent to outright blame. However, I will blame sects of those religions for actively encouraging dangerous or evil thought.

I don't see why not. Problematic concepts are manifold - nationalism and racism being two easy examples. Like religion, nationalist and racist sentiment splits humanity into exlusive clubs and creates an excuse for some people to fight others - be it because their sky fairy is the sky fairy and he commands us to kill nonbelievers; because they don't want any godless Reds looming over Mom and apple pie; or because they're obviously superior because look, their skin is white as the driven snow.

So, if religion the concept creates an absurd and arbitrary fault line and provides a convenient excuse for people to act like assholes, why shouldn't it get its share of the blame?

[Alyeska]

Religion didn't cause that problem. Ultimately it was the people of that religion. Don't look for a bigger target when simple human stupidity suffices.

[wolveraptor]

Isn't that the same logic that the mentioned apologist is using?

[Simplicius]

Religion didn't cause that problem. Ultimately it was the people of that religion. Don't look for a bigger target when simple human stupidity suffices.

Human stupidity is the biggest target, simply because it's at the root of human problems. Religion is a concept by which that stupidity may be manifested in a particular way, and therefore with more capacity to do damage than if people went about being idiots without having millions of other idiots standing by to back them up.

Saying religion doesn't cause a particular problem seems like saying "guns don't kill people, people do." While factually true, it neglects the fact that a gun - or religion - makes an ignorant or malicious person that much more dangerous than they would be without it. A person is completely justified in being leery of religion just as he is of guns, if he doesn't know that its wielder can be trusted.

You can't ban religion, you can't throw it in jail or fine it, but that doesn't mean that you can't recognize the hazard it poses and, by pointing it out, attempt to minimize it.

[Darth Wong]

Religion didn't cause that problem. Ultimately it was the people of that religion. Don't look for a bigger target when simple human stupidity suffices.

Tell me, would you spout that same apologist tripe for white supremacism? White supremacism doesn't cause problems, but overzealous white supremacists do?

[wolveraptor]

It's also important to remember that while not all religions encourage bad acts, they all discourage skepticism and want you to place all your trust in things that don't appear to exist. That in and of itself is bad, but the possibilities it creates for manipulation are also a danger.

[Alyeska]

Religion didn't cause that problem. Ultimately it was the people of that religion. Don't look for a bigger target when simple human stupidity suffices.

Tell me, would you spout that same apologist tripe for white supremacism? White supremacism doesn't cause problems, but overzealous white supremacists do?

I did ammend my original statement to say that I would condem certain institutions that entirely evil. So no, I would not say that for racism.

Come on Mike, pay attention here. Don't go jumping into something insulting someone without first bothering to read what they wrote.

[Darth Wong]

Religion didn't cause that problem. Ultimately it was the people of that religion. Don't look for a bigger target when simple human stupidity suffices.

Tell me, would you spout that same apologist tripe for white supremacism? White supremacism doesn't cause problems, but overzealous white supremacists do?

I did ammend my original statement to say that I would condem certain institutions that entirely evil. So no, I would not say that for racism.

What a worthless evasion. And what is the ethical difference between saying that all blacks are inferior and saying that all non-Christians are immoral?

Come on Mike, pay attention here. Don't go jumping into something insulting someone without first bothering to read what they wrote.

Your disclaimer is nothing more than ass-covering bullshit, and does not address the core problem with your logic, which is your insistence that an ideology can't be held responsible for something unless you declare that it's "evil": an argument which is specious in the extreme. Why should the moral quality of an ideology have any effect on the logic of holding it responsible for the results of its own edicts?

[Dark Hellion]

I think you are making a jump between the specific and the abstract, Mr. Wong. Religion as a concept has not, to my knowledge, had any good argument made to state that as a whole it is morally wrong. Discrimination as a whole (of which white supremecists are a subset) has had such arguments made such as the alternate of the Principle of Equal Consideration. Of course, there are also arguments that are very strong that certain forms of discrimination should be enforced (we already do, with such things as mens/womans bathrooms, etc.). At the extremely abstract, Religion, as with almost any concept, such as Nationalism or Discrimination is very hard to pin a morality on.
The difference is when you get to specific religions, it is exceedingly obvious that Christianity can be blamed for the actions of Christians, just as White Supremecy can be blamed for the actions of the Aryan Nation, or Nazism for the Holocaust.