7 Questions

Originally posted by sonhouse
So I gather then that you feel the society we have set up now is as good as it can get? There can be nothing better?
The idea we are born into sin is just a brainwashing technique to instill fear in children so they get fully programmed for life therefore domesticated. I see however, it doesn't seem to stop people from killing and all the rest. Your socie ...[text shortened]... ritical come to mind here? Not you personally, I am talking about the leaders of your religion.

How on earth did you get the idea that what I've said implies that modern society is either perfect or as good as it can get?

Your whole "Religion is the root of all evil" rhetoric is not only childish and naive, but the society you dream of has also been tried before (especially since you did not hesitate to show that your Utopia would be a dictatorship) and has failed.

Until you learn to adopt a more mature form of atheism it has to be pointed out to you that you are no less "religious" than the people you denounce.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How on earth did you get the idea that what I've said implies that modern society is either perfect or as good as it can get?

Your whole "Religion is the root of all evil" rhetoric is not only childish and naive, but the society you dream of has also been tried before (especially since you did not hesitate to show that your Utopia would be a dictat ...[text shortened]... has to be pointed out to you that you are no less "religious" than the people you denounce.

I have never said religion itself is the root of all evil, it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.
I don't think humans are so vile as to require some draconian religion to combat evil inherent in mankind. I think the Judeo-christian-muslim version of religion continues the subjugation of women and war. You will never convince me that comes from some god, that a god would decide this is all ok. A god needing a heirarchy(which I think it does not in the first place) but accepting that precept, it would follow that the messengers would all have the same tale and would therefore not be inclined to kill one another because they would all believe the exact same thing. What is naive about that? It is your inablity to see the obvious is what condemns religious thought to the backwoods of reality.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have never said religion itself is the root of all evil, it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.
I don't think humans are so vile as to require some draconian religion to combat evil inherent in mankind. I think the Judeo-christian-muslim version of religion continues the subjugation of women and war. You will never conv ...[text shortened]... ur inablity to see the obvious is what condemns religious thought to the backwoods of reality.

it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.

And you're not using religion (rather, the opposition to religion) as an excuse to build your own empire?

You will never convince me that comes from some god, that a god would decide this is all ok.

If that is your faith (a blind one at that), then so be it.

What is naive about that?

What is naive is your dream that a religion-less world somehow be Utopia (or as close to it as we can get). What's naive is your assumption that somehow subjugation of weaker classes will stop in a religion-less world (quite ironic considering that the world you propose is a dictatorship). What's naive is your assumption that because religions don't agree with each other none of them can be true.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.

And you're not using religion (rather, the opposition to religion) as an excuse to build your own empire?

You will never convince me that comes from some god, that a god would decide this is all ok.

If that is your faith (a blind one at that), then s umption that because religions don't agree with each other none of them can be true.[/b]

It may well be a permenent feature of humans to require a religion.
I would not be so stupid as to say my colony would be atheist. It is obvious if it was set up that way it would be theist within a hundred years. I would just put in place proceedures whereby if some deluded individual convinced others that he is the conduit to god and started getting followers, I would just make sure the rules include fairness to women and total empathy for whatever other religion poops, er, pops out. Just saying if you want to believe elk antlers are from god, fine, just make sure you keep within fair bounds. One thing for sure, if I got my colony, it would at least start out not encumbered by ancient dogma.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing for sure, if I got my colony, it would at least start out not encumbered by ancient dogma.

No, you'd just start out with new ones.

(Am I the only one who thinks you're beginning to sound like a teenager who's just been grounded? "Someday, I'll get my own place then I'll show them..." )

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.

And you're not using religion (rather, the opposition to religion) as an excuse to build your own empire?

You will never convince me that comes from some god, that a god would decide this is all ok.

If that is your faith (a blind one at that), then s umption that because religions don't agree with each other none of them can be true.[/b]

There is a “seed question” here, that I’m not sure I can articulate clearly. But I’ll have a go—

What is it about “religious” beliefs/attitudes that permits so much “evil” to be committed in the name of this/that religion? (After all, we are not really talking about people who say “I don’t care what the Torah. Gospels, Qur’an, Sutras say”: we’re talking about people who are able to “find,” and persuade others, that the teachings support such things as slavery, oppression, torture, killing, etc.) And it does not seem to always be some fringe minority—and if it is, why are the religious teaching not so strong as to “compel” more of the silent majority to speak out?

That is what, I think, underlies sonhouse’s critiques. And I think it has to be addressed.

For religion, per se—or what I’d like to call here the “religious attitude.”* I have always disagreed with the “religion is the root of all/most evil” stance. But religious people—whose religions profess love, charity, compassion, justice, non-judgmentalism, etc., etc.—commit a sufficient amount of evil, in the name of their religions,** to warrant the question.

Is it the “ease” of allegiance to a given system (whether ecclesial or secular), as opposed to self-critical responsibility? Is it the promise of rewards for such allegiance, and punishment for breach of allegiance?

I’m not sure that I am putting the question well here at all. What are the “seeds” within religion itself that allow religious people, who think they are within the bounds of Christianity or Islam or any other religion, to “hijack” the religion (as I think you and ahosyney—and I—might put it)—and, conversely, what “seeds” are there that ought to work to prevent it? The Wahhabis don’t make their stuff up out of whole cloth; neither do Christian fundamentalists...etc.

* I am speaking here of some attitude that may be prevalent across religions, but may also found in secular systems, simply to avoid that dichotomy.

** I'm not interested here in things people would admit go against their religion, but do them anyway.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have never said religion itself is the root of all evil, it's using religion used as an excuse to build empires that I object to.
I don't think humans are so vile as to require some draconian religion to combat evil inherent in mankind. I think the Judeo-christian-muslim version of religion continues the subjugation of women and war. You will never conv ...[text shortened]... ur inablity to see the obvious is what condemns religious thought to the backwoods of reality.

Again you talk about subjungation and you didn't show it to me. I told what I know about women in Islam but you didn't comment.

Makeing an empire was never the target of Islam. Do you know that propohet Mohammed died with no money left in his house. Did you know that he was sleeping on the ground. I don't think they wanted to build an Empire.

What I understand from your words is you don't like the Idea that GOD agrees of war. Lets you assume that you found the religon you dream of that has no war and you already have you city that you all have the same faith and your religon don't ask you to fight for GOD as you want. But others who don't belive what you belive want you to stop. Want you to be like them and come to fight you. What will you do. GOD ask you not to fight. What will you do?

Originally posted by vistesd
There is a “seed question” here, that I’m not sure I can articulate clearly. But I’ll have a go—

What is it about “religious” beliefs/attitudes that permits so much “evil” to be committed in the name of this/that religion? (After all, we are not really talking about people who say “I don’t care what the Torah. Gospels, Qur’an, Sutras say”: we’re talking ...[text shortened]... not interested here in things people would admit go against their religion, but do them anyway.

I think the problem is that the seemingly irrational level of belief required to accept a religion's teachings as the word of a supreme being will automatically lead people to believe that anyone claiming to be a teacher of that religion truly is. This can be seen when strange cults form, people who join do not see the cult as a 'new' religion merely the one true branch of an existing religion.

Originally posted by Ian68
I think the problem is that the seemingly irrational level of belief required to accept a religion's teachings as the word of a supreme being will automatically lead people to believe that anyone claiming to be a teacher of that religion truly is. This can be seen when strange cults form, people who join do not see the cult as a 'new' religion merely the one true branch of an existing religion.

Thank you. I’m not sure that I agree wholly, though certainly we see elements of that. At least I think you got my jumbled attempt to ask the question, and I hope a good discussion can continue from here.

I will, as usual, probably be gone from here until Monday, and I’ll try and catch up then. But I wanted to add that I have been reading sonhouse’s posts for a long time now, and I do not find him particularly naive or stubborn. And what I see as his core critique bothers me, because I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer for it...

Originally posted by ahosyney
Again you talk about subjungation and you didn't show it to me. I told what I know about women in Islam but you didn't comment.

Makeing an empire was never the target of Islam. Do you know that propohet Mohammed died with no money left in his house. Did you know that he was sleeping on the ground. I don't think they wanted to build an Empire.

What I ...[text shortened]... them and come to fight you. What will you do. GOD ask you not to fight. What will you do?

I did mention one obvious subjugation of women: Not being allowed to drive in Saudi. If that isn't subjugation I don't know the meaning of the word. From what I hear, Islam women will wear the dress code because they know the men are animals and cannot help themselves violating a woman. I know of one instance near Nazareth on the Palestinian side, we visited an orphanage, (Islam does not allow a normal adoption as you know so there are a lot of orphanages) one of those had a woman helper who was being hidden out by the woman running it because she had been accused of adultery (falsely as it turned out) and thugs came there to find and kill her. The woman who managed the orphanage kept her hidden till the thugs left. I saw that with my own eyes. If that is not subjugation I don't know the meaning of the word. I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians, having lived in Jerusalem for three years and saw the way the Israeli's treated the Palestinians, giving them water only a few hours a day, water not fit to irrigate much less drink, and so forth, but the arab world started it all in 1948 when they attacked unprovoked.
Mohammed may have not wanted to start an empire but the decendents sure did. Just like Jesus was not after empire but Paul (may he rot in whatever hell comes up) took it upon himself to build an empire.
My point about killing in the name of god is simple: If these messengers get words from god they should not be fighting one another down the line. Why is there no message from god condemning all this death? Has this god's power diminished? Has it gone to manage another universe and left this one untended?
I tend to think its the latter, if indeed there is a god at all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I did mention one obvious subjugation of women: Not being allowed to drive in Saudi. If that isn't subjugation I don't know the meaning of the word. From what I hear, Islam women will wear the dress code because they know the men are animals and cannot help themselves violating a woman. I know of one instance near Nazareth on the Palestinian side, we visite ...[text shortened]... d left this one untended?
I tend to think its the latter, if indeed there is a god at all.

I will answer you although I feel it doesn't make difference:


1- The first point: The driving license. This is a sudia Arebia law, not Islamic Law. And I know they are thinking about to change it. If it is really from GOD they will not think about changing it. If you want to know why they made this law I can't ask you but it is not an Islamic one.

2- For the dress code:

a- First of all in Muslims faith it is not because men are animals and they are going to eat it. This is bacause it is what GOD wants. It is written in Quran. Of course you will not like that.

b- The Muslim woman don't think it is a form of subjugation. Actually it think about it as a form of faith. I have a wife. She never said that. My mother always were it and never said that, and when she knew that her dress doesn't meet what GOD want she changed it without any force, just because she has faith. My sister covered her face by herself without my father, me or any one. That is an example but all muslims I know are the same. Non of them feel subjugation. They don't even accept the idea that they go out covering even part of their hair. I talked with my wife about your claim and guess what she said, she said she think she is confortable in that dress and she loves it because she loves her GOD. If this is the case how can you claim anything else.

c- What exactly the problem of the islamic dress. What don't you like about it. Why should the women cover her hair or her body. Do you think the women did that in the West she became more happy. Do not you agree with me that the ratio of sexual abuse against woman in the West is much greater than any islamic country. Tell me exactly what is the problem.

d- If you belive that man is the source of this order, why should he do that. What will make the man more happy when the woman cover herself or to uncover herself. I think you know the answer..

f- You claim that the source of this that men are animals. Tell me where you will find that in Quran or Hadith, if you know.

3- The third point you raised is your story about woman that was accused of adultery and I understand from you that you belive that this is because she is a woman. So I have to talk about that in much details:

a. Islam is not only a religon that you go to mousqe and pray and that is all. Islam is a complete system for human life. So it had regulation for human to worship GOD and it also has a law for every aspect of human life. One of these laws is for adultery. There is a detailed desciption of this crime (Yes it is considered crime in Islam and I will talk about that later).

b. This law doesn't differenciate between man and woman. Punishment is the same for both of them.

c. To accuse any one for adultery in two cases:
i. That he admit the crime himself.
ii. Or four men witness it. They should all see the two having intercourse. The judge should make sure that the four witnesses are not bad people in the sense they could lie. If 3 say they witness and one don't the 3 are considered comitting another crime. And the accused person is sent free.

So as you see if the one didn't admit the crime himself it is so hard to accuse any one of this crime.

d. If it happen that any one accused for this crime the punishment depends on if he married before or not. If no he punished by 100 hits on his back. And he is sent away from home. If he/she is married before then the punishment is death, as you described it. Of course you will say GOD cann't say that. If is so cruel what did they do they are free. Then this get me to the following parts.

f. Why should we assume that we all that we all will comite this crime. Or that many will be accused to it. During the prophit muhammed life only one man and one women were accused with it and they admit it not by witness. If you really belive in GOD you will not think about it.

g. In all cultures adultery is not good, even if it is not a crime but people used to not to accept it.

h. The punishment of adultery in Judism and Christianity is the same as Islam Death and I can show where it is there. But they no more follow their book but muslims try to. I say try because not all muslims do that today.

i. You may call for "sexual freedom" but sexual freedom is what man wants. But it caused more problem than it solve ( I don't know what it solved actually). Many children without a father, AIDS and more. So it is clear that adultery is a dangerouse crime even more than killing. So the punishment is equal to its danger. If your you faith is week and you may think about that the punishment will stop you.


I hope that was clear. Relating adultery to woman is misleading.

4. Accusing Islam for what is Isreal do for Palestinians is so funny. I don't really know what to say. So because Isreal prevent the water from Palestinians we conclude that Islam is from evil. I think I have no comment.

5. As all muslims follow Quran and What prophet mohammed tought us, and he didn't ask us to build an empire. We are asked to spread the message of GOD to every one. Visited give a complete answer about war in Islam if you are interested you can go read it.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=55105&page=4

I know you will not like what I said. And you came up with new things to prove your point which really don't know it.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will answer you although I feel it doesn't make difference:


1- The first point: The driving license. This is a sudia Arebia law, not Islamic Law. And I know they are thinking about to change it. If it is really from GOD they will not think about changing it. If you want to know why they made this law I can't ask you but it is not an Islamic one.

2 ...[text shortened]... And you came up with new things to prove your point which really don't know it.

Question—and then I really am gone till Monday!

Where in the Qur’an does it say the punishment for adultery is death? I thought the punishment was 100 “strikes.” (And 80 “strikes” for anyone who testifies falsely in such a case.)

Gone now, see you soon...

Originally posted by vistesd
Question—and then I really am gone till Monday!

Where in the Qur’an does it say the punishment for adultery is death? I thought the punishment was 100 “strikes.” (And 80 “strikes” for anyone who testifies falsely in such a case.)

Gone now, see you soon...

I think you know that there are two sources for Islamic Laws: Quran and Hadith. Hadith is simply what the prophet Mohammed did or say. As you said in Quran it is 100 striks but it was narated that prophet Mohammed did punish a man and a women who admit adultery by death.

So as I said if they accused person didn't marry before the punishment is 100 striks and if he/she did marry it is death.

There is another dimention to the punishment in Islam. It is not only a punishment. It is a purification. When someone is punished for a sin he commite that is a sacrifice for his/her sin. To prove that the prophet said about the woman who commited adultery after she died she repented a repentance enough for every one. So her death granted her the heaven.

In islam there is three conditions for repentance:
1. To regret the sin. Because he disobeied GOD.
2. To make intension to not to repeat it.
3. To recover what his sin caused. So for example if he steal something he should return it. Punishment is the recovery of a crime. To complete you repentance. Although you may not be accused for it but you repentance will be incomplete. But GOD may accept it

Originally posted by vistesd
There is a “seed question” here, that I’m not sure I can articulate clearly. But I’ll have a go—

What is it about “religious” beliefs/attitudes that permits so much “evil” to be committed in the name of this/that religion? (After all, we are not really talking about people who say “I don’t care what the Torah. Gospels, Qur’an, Sutras say”: we’re talking not interested here in things people would admit go against their religion, but do them anyway.

I'll start off with some apparently oblique observations:

1. The worst genocides of the last century (which by far accounted for the most killings in history) had very little to do with religion or religious beliefs. Were Jews exterminated in Nazi camps for their belief in the Torah? Did the Hutus and Tutsis go to war because of their differing theologies? What promise of eternal life did Stalin look forward to in sentencing people to death and hardship?

(And those are the genocides we can all agree on. As a person who views the beginning of human life at conception, you don't even want to get me started on the millions of victims of abortion.)

2. If one looks beyond the spectacular, the more "mundane" instances of human cruelty (domestic violence, abuse, oppression) also have little to do with religion.

I'm not highlighting these to downplay atrocities committed in the name of religion -- but to point out that if you focus only on such atrocities you'll naturally think that religion is somehow a driving factor.

sonhouse thinks that the notion of original sin is "evil". As a Christian anthropologist, I examine the human condition and see it instantiated around me every day. Virtually anything -- family, love, government, education -- can and is used as a tool for control, oppression and cruelty. And, in many cases, the oppressors begin with the best of intentions.

(I am reminded of a dialogue from the first Lord of the Rings film -- which I watched recently. On being told the true nature of the One Ring, Frodo immediately offers it to Gandalf so that he may, in his superior wisdom and power, use or dispose of it. Gandalf's reply: "Do not tempt me! Understand this, I would want to use it to do good, but the Ring would use me to do its evil instead." )

This is not to say that some religious systems (and many political ideologies) do not tolerate, or even outright advocate, violence. The debate for the soul of Islam continues; but there was nothing peaceful about (say) the Aztec religion either.

Sometimes, tenets of a religion can be twisted outright to justify cruelty. As I often say in the context of reading too much into isolated Bible verses, one could use Cinderella to justify slaughter if one were so inclined.

More generally, however, I think it has to do with power. The old cliche about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely has a ring of truth to it. Once a system of ideas gains sufficient political, economic or popular power, adherents of that system can be tempted to act cruelly. Examples from Western Christianity and Islam are dime-a-dozen, but one only has to look at the treatment of Christian martyrs in the Far East to see that this is not an isolated phenomenon.

So, to answer your question, while I think that some religions do indeed have "seeds" of violence within them, I think more relevant are the "seeds" of violence within human beings themselves. Often they are ordinary human beings like you and I (I am reminded of the fact that many atrocities in the Hindu-Muslim riots in India over the last decade were committed by ordinary, white-collar workers) in unusual (or perhaps usual) circumstances.

A few final notes:

- Sometimes the majority is silent simply because they are afraid.

- I think you are being completely disingenuous in throwing Christian fundamentalists into the discussion. Essentially, you're falling into step with the secularist strategy of painting all zealous religious believers with the same brush with the view of discrediting , and ultimately banishing, religion. If you want to speak of violent extremists, then please focus on those only.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll start off with some apparently oblique observations:

1. The worst genocides of the last century (which by far accounted for the most killings in history) had very little to do with religion or religious beliefs. Were Jews exterminated in Nazi camps for their belief in the Torah? Did the Hutus and Tutsis go to war because of their differing the ...[text shortened]... on. If you want to speak of violent extremists, then please focus on those only.

I'm not highlighting these to downplay atrocities committed in the name of religion -- but to point out that if you focus only on such atrocities you'll naturally think that religion is somehow a driving factor.

I understand. I was trying to get at something broader with my phrase “religious attitude,” that I think would apply to, say, the Nazis as well. Something to do with the seduction of group-think, perhaps...

More generally, however, I think it has to do with power. The old cliche about power corrupting, and absolute power corrupting absolutely has a ring of truth to it. Once a system of ideas gains sufficient political, economic or popular power, adherents of that system can be tempted to act cruelly. Examples from Western Christianity and Islam are dime-a-dozen, but one only has to look at the treatment of Christian martyrs in the Far East to see that this is not an isolated phenomenon.

Good point.

- Sometimes the majority is silent simply because they are afraid.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Also, they likely do not think of themselves as a majority unit, but individuals.

- I think you are being completely disingenuous in throwing Christian fundamentalists into the discussion. Essentially, you're falling into step with the secularist strategy of painting all zealous religious believers with the same brush with the view of discrediting , and ultimately banishing, religion. If you want to speak of violent extremists, then please focus on those only.

Well, rightly or wrongly, the word “fundamentalist” has come to mean, in the general lexicon, something more than “zealous”—just as it has come to mean more than a particular group of Protestant Christians based on certain “fundamentals” of the faith. Mother Theresa was zealous; a Muslim who had no violent proclivities at all, but who was zealous about her faith, might think of herself as a “jihadist”—a word which has also come to mean something else in the common lexicon (at least in the West).

Nevertheless, your point is taken—I am referring to groups whose attitudes have in the past, are now, or based on historical observation, might be likely to lead them to commit violence in the name of their religion in the future... I’m happy just to use the word “extremist.”