And holy crap Craig you got Rishi to say something meaningful. :P
|
This forum is for discussion involving sociology, philosophy, science, culture, opinions, gender, politics, etc. Art by Jeffrey K. Bedrick and Noel Mollon |
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Veckums |
|||
|
Most religious institutions are expressly organizations with the goal of telling people what to think, excluding independent thought, assigning officials with
authority over thought, and acting as a divine proxy. That is such an obvious formula for corruption that it is quite reasonable for them to consider any wrong
religion evil, because only divine guidance could keep it from being used as such.
And holy crap Craig you got Rishi to say something meaningful. :P
Last Edited By: Veckums
03/10/2009 7:18 AM.
Edited 3 times.
|
|||
Tom D |
|||
Ichigo Kurosaki wrote:Is that true? Probably. Is it true that, if we were all atheists (as I am), that we would find something else to wage war and inflict suffering over? Of course we would. I don't think that belief in God motivates people to cause suffering. It just happens to be the most convenient excuse for it.
-Tawm
(formerly Dirk Amoeba) |
|||
Rishi |
|||
Veckums wrote:Dude, I know. I even ended up surprising myself!
|
|||
Hukos |
|||
|
Wow, this thread is full of epicness. <.<<br />
Seriously though, religon isn't the problem (At least when it isn't organized...), its the power people can and do attain through religon. Its like the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "Religon doesn't kill people, power through Religon kills people." |
|||
Rishi |
|||
Hukos wrote:That's the thing though, man. The OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of religion is organised. Hence we have churches, mosques, mandirs etc.
|
|||
Hukos |
|||
|
The main reason organized religon is bad though, is because it leads to someone having power over the group, and power corrupts as we all know. So basically,
it isn't religon that is bad, but rather the power that comes from itself, is what I'm trying to say.
|
|||
The Coyote with No Name |
|||
|
I personally have no problem with the good Cardinal excommunicating those who helped with the Abortion. They're a church and allowed to make any rules they want doctrinally one of 'em is the Pope and the guys in red are always right and if you don't like it, you don't have to be Catholic. Religious freedom means the right to exclude people you consider immoral/heretics as well. In fact, if a church doesn't strongly address the question of morals then what's the point of the church? I can worship god well enough on my own. As for the question of if religion is the bane of humanity, all of you are ignoring a more important player in all conflicts. It's not the church, but the state. Most wars have been wars of nationalism. The church merely serves as a propaganda point, however, any gathering of people can serve well as a propaganda point...such as compulsory schooling(where you can easily brainwash the young, you have them for half the day, five days a week after all; churches generally only get a kid for a few hours a week at best). |
|||
nukeallthewhales |
|||
The Coyote with No Name wrote:However I look upon the situation as this: The step father had raped his nine year old daughter who got pregnant with twins as a result. The daughter has a uterus that would not be able to accommodate the twins, therefore putting the daughter is mortal risk of her life (thus her life plus the twins would be lost). Thus the daughter would in essence have been murdered by the father. Doctors can save the life of the nine year old kid, however this would cause the "death" of the twins (i am not debating in these circumstances the sentience of unborn the feotus'). Now we have a situation where we have one daughter who is alive yet without the twins. Would a "God" want to allow the slow and painful death of one of his creations in a situation that has no hope? Would you leave an injured man in the street to die after being attacked by another individual? This isn't a cut and dry debate and this thread should try to focus upon the abortion in similar circumstances. |
|||
SonicV2 |
|||
|
I like how people up and say that religion is the main reason for deaths. If everybody in the world were Angelican Christians, do you really think there would
be wars on religion?
Of course, I'll never understand how the stepfather wasn't excommunicated first. =/
|
|||
The Coyote with No Name |
|||
|
First thing, the reason why the mother and physicians were excommunicated before the father is quite simple. The abortion is an objective fact(the physicians documented it after all) while the father has not been convicted yet. Being accused of something doesn't mean you did it(the Duke Lacrosse rape accusation for instance). Second, I view this more as a case of conflicting ethics between two groups. The Cardinal has a duty to enforce canon law. The physicians have a duty to help their patient live(and their patient in this case is the girl, not the fetuses). Therefore, the Cardinal had a duty to punish the physicians for their violation of canon law. The physicians had a duty, being the girl's physicians, to perform the abortion which(I assume) is within their legal and ethical rights to do in Brazil. However, I do think as a matter of punishment, the Cardinal went off the deep end. Excommunication is extreme for a group of people who had good motives in doing the abortion. A better punishment might of been to deny them mass till they went to confession and did a religious punishment(like forcing 'em to go on a pilgramage to a holy site, or forcing them to do a catechism class again). Excommunication should be reserved for religious heretics(such as the four catholic women who wanted to ordain themselves priests). Basically, the physicians did the right thing but the Cardinal had a duty to fulfill himself. He was too harsh in the punishment though. |
|||
Tails2k |
|||
|
Geez, rough crowd in here.
Really, I've found 2 years ago that any atheist can be as bad as those of the religious kind. I lost friends, had slander on me, and even faced violence from the same people because I believe in God. I'm a dark, rowdy, crazed person for the most part who never even mentions it even. As I said before, human beings are just vile at times. They'd kill for God, a politician, a way of governing, race, the sake of their own wallets, anything. I'm not necessarily jumping on the bandwagon that feels that the religious are to be persecuted and hated in later years for being such a way, but I will say I think both "sides" of this imaginary battle has enough crap on their shoulders. As I said in a political topic "How does one debate opinion"? I still have some faith in the idea of an organized religion here and there, but really, when you have anything, ANYTHING organized and grow in numbers, chances are you just use your power and numbers improperly. |
|||
Rico Underwood |
|||
This isn't a cut and dry debate and this thread should try to focus upon the abortion in similar circumstances.Can you clarify that? Because I KNOW I'm misreading that. I think you're trying to dehumanize the girl for the sake of debate. I'm wrong, right? ~Rico |
|||
matthayter700 |
|||
|
Vec, how exactly are people "born into" it? Even if they were raised in a particular faith, it's up to them whether to stay or go. I was raised
anglican, that doesn't make me conform to it. My point was more so about your distinction between the "leaders" and the "followers"; by
remaining followers, they're encouraging the leaders to keep going down the path they're going.
As for Coyote comparing compulsory schooling to the church in terms of being a "propaganda point"; if you had said that to me a few years ago I don't know how I'd have reacted to such a comparison, but I don't think I'd have liked it. That said, I'm not as inclined to disagree now as I would've been then. There's a difference between education and indoctrination, but then again, schools can somewhat blur the lines sometimes, such as with their "education" in terms of illegal drugs like marijuana, for example; those aspects could use some fixing. But I think it's a somewhat weak analogy; schools are secular, or at least are supposed to be, and at least they teach about different religions in the world, etc. as different cultures, whereas the pamphlets churches give to little kids refute doubts like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are just doubts the devil fills your mind with"; it's completely manipulative, whereas at least the supposed goal of public education is to, well, educate people. In hindsight, I'm not so sure now if I trust their approach either. And natw, you talk about the circumstances of the abortion, but I can't help but think you're missing Coyote's point; if it's their church, it's up to them what their standards are, regardless of their reasons. Those who don't like it don't have to be members. You ask about if "god" would want one of "his" creations to die a slow and painful death, but really, who gets to say what "god" wants? Isn't it rather presumptuous to begin with? And if a particular church has a certain stance on that, and certain people don't like that stance, then what are those people doing in that church? |
|||
Veckums |
|||
However, I do think as a matter of punishment, the Cardinal went off the deep end. Excommunication is extreme for a group of people who had good motives in doing the abortion. A better punishment might of been to deny them mass till they went to confession and did a religious punishment(like forcing 'em to go on a pilgramage to a holy site, or forcing them to do a catechism class again). Why should they get any punishment at all? If you take it as the anti-abortion point of view, they saved 1 life instead of killing her AND the twins. Vec, how exactly are people "born into" it? Even if they were raised in a particular faith, it's up to them whether to stay or go. It is a major ascribed status and even if they leave that religion is what they started with. People are far less likely to switch to another religion than stick with the religion that they are ascribed. And natw, you talk about the circumstances of the abortion, but I can't help but think you're missing Coyote's point; if it's their church, it's up to them what their standards are, regardless of their reasons. Those who don't like it don't have to be members. You ask about if "god" would want one of "his" creations to die a slow and painful death, but really, who gets to say what "god" wants? Isn't it rather presumptuous to begin with? And if a particular church has a certain stance on that, and certain people don't like that stance, then what are those people doing in that church? Except that the religion is powerful in the country so they are essentially being expelled from their society. Also, the ruling is only being done as a political statement. Would they excommunicate a lifeguard who saved only the swimmer he could? While the idea that the church could have anything in common with Jesus is laughable, must I point out how he condemned the use of rules by pharisees to oppress the people?
Last Edited By: Veckums
03/11/2009 1:53 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||