All religions are dangerous?

[_Ren]

Not ALL religion is dangerous. To accuse a pacifist of being dangerous, as in the example that Jainists are dangerous because they won't fight to defend themselves or others, is a bit of a reach. To accuse Shintoism as dangerous, because the concept was institutionalized by the Japanese Emperor in order to unify the Japanese people into a fascist state, is a bit unfair because there's nothing in Shintoism that authorizes and advocates fascism.

However, to blithely dismiss all religions as harmless because they're simply subject to political and social machinations is extremely naïve. There are religions, that overtly exert violent control and then offer sanction for their actions, and it's all to be found within their own texts and related edicts. This is undeniable, and it's suicidal to not recognize from whence all the hate and anger springs. We cannot project our own fears or hopes onto someone or something else when attempting to understand it. We do ourselves a huge disservice by doing such a thing.

I can't see much I disagree with in the above, and is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along.
...I'm not sure anybody in this thread has tried to argue that all forms of religion are 'harmless'...

I wonder if you would agree that even many religions that historically could have been said to have 'overtly exert[ed] violent control' (at various times) no longer do (certainly when considering individual subsections of them) - and are now essentially benign and 'ritualistic' in nature - in many parts of the world...

[_antishock8]

Not ALL religion is dangerous. To accuse a pacifist of being dangerous, as in the example that Jainists are dangerous because they won't fight to defend themselves or others, is a bit of a reach. To accuse Shintoism as dangerous, because the concept was institutionalized by the Japanese Emperor in order to unify the Japanese people into a fascist state, is a bit unfair because there's nothing in Shintoism that authorizes and advocates fascism.

However, to blithely dismiss all religions as harmless because they're simply subject to political and social machinations is extremely naïve. There are religions, that overtly exert violent control and then offer sanction for their actions, and it's all to be found within their own texts and related edicts. This is undeniable, and it's suicidal to not recognize from whence all the hate and anger springs. We cannot project our own fears or hopes onto someone or something else when attempting to understand it. We do ourselves a huge disservice by doing such a thing.

I can't see much I disagree with in the above, and is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along.

I wonder if you would agree that even many religious that historically could have been said to have 'overtly exert[ed] violent control' (at various times) no longer do (certainly when considering individual subsections of them) - and are now essentially benign and 'ritualistic' in nature - in many parts of the world...

I do. Judaism and most of Christianity come to mind when I read your statement. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about them is that they have the justification for violence embedded in their holy writs, and their adherents can always fall back on those justifications for any policies or actions they think they may need to concoct. If an adherent of either of these two religions really believes that his deity wants him to commit a violent act he need only look into his own holy book for justification. That's a dangerous combination. A psychotic with a religious edict handy.

A Jainist, if I'm not mistaken, would be sorely pressed to find anything in his Jainsit scriptures to advocate violence. I could be wrong because I'm not overly familiar with Jainism other then they're considered heretics by pretty much everyone in India. The point is that a Jainist would have to be violent on his own accord, but since his religion doesn't support that kind of behavior I suspect violent crimes committed by Jainists are demographically lower (significantly) than those of other major faiths.

[_Ren]

I do. Judaism and most of Christianity come to mind when I read your statement. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about them is that they have the justification for violence embedded in their holy writs, and their adherents can always fall back on those justifications for any policies or actions they think they may need to concoct. If an adherent of either of these two religions really believes that his deity wants him to commit a violent act he need only look into his own holy book for justification. That's a dangerous combination. A psychotic with a religious edict handy.

Yeap - I'm pretty sure I agree.
So when some Christians - for example - state that they believe that the killing rampages and the harsh practices described in the Old Testament were just ancient history / myth 'assigned' to God - we could approach that in a couple of ways:

1. Whack them round the head for not fully believing their own 'dogma'. (Which would be hilarious, since we'd be doing exactly what 'dogmatic' religious leaders want to do..!)
2. Respect them for reaching what would seem like not only a rational conclusion, but a 'moral' one. (At least to me).

We 'could' try continually knocking them over the head for their 'cherry picking' ways, but if they find 'worth' in their religion from doing that, then - as an individual - what are they doing that can be seen as 'dangerous'?
...and am I going to help matters by trying to shove my ideology down their throat?


As an atheist, I don't even need to turn to ANY book if I want to justify violence. Can it not be argued that atheism allows me to justify pretty much anything?

[_antishock8]

As an atheist, I don't even need to turn to ANY book if I want to justify violence. Can it not be argued that atheism allows me to justify pretty much anything?

No. Atheism is simply a position. It asserts nothing except that it is the opposite of theism. Oui oui.

[_Ren]

No. Atheism is simply a position. It asserts nothing except that it is the opposite of theism. Oui oui.

I know it doesn't assert an action.
I'm saying that AS an atheist, I'm free to justify anything I like... I don't even have to bother reading 'any' book to try and justify what I want to do...

But I take your point. An atheist isn't given a clear example by their 'ideology' concerning going out and righteously slaughtering anybody.
...but then, atheists aren't given clear example by their 'ideology' to 'Love their neighbour' either.

It could be seen as giving with one hand, and taking with the other.
In my estimation, non-extreme religious belief 'evens out in the wash' so to speak.

[_Moniker]

In the source, we find that they build “shrines” to the “gods.” Doing that took and takes time, energy, wealth which might have addressed disease, cultural problems, social problems, etc.

We also believe in building statues, sports stadiums and buildings full of 'useless' art here in the Western, secular world.

None of those are 'essential'. All of those take 'time and energy'. All of those efforts could have been plowed into addressing 'disease, cultural problems, social problems'.

The desire to build monuments and other similar kinds of items and buildings isn't a religious need. It is a human need. And it is NOT dangerous...

I mean jeez, here in Britain we built the millennium dome to 'commemorate the passing of the millennium' - there was NO religious motivation behind that.
If only we could have built something as beautiful as the shrines in Monikers pictures. Nope - instead we get a great big white f****** dome! LOL.
Gosh - aren't we 'advanced'.

Do you have evidence that those involved in Shintoism do not make materialistic efforts to combat 'health, cultural and social' problems in at least an equal manner to the 'less religious'? If you do, please provide it.

Do you know how many millions are plowed into Hollywood movies? (Not essential)
Into producing music? (Not essential)
Do you know how many hospitals could be built from all that that money? What amount of drugs provided to truly needy people?

I don't want to live in the world you want to live in JAK. I actually want effort spent to create a bit of beauty. I want to live in a world of diversity. A world of 'wonder'.
You may think that all the 'shrines' built are a 'waste of time', but I sure don't. One day, I want to go visit them. And plenty of other people do too. They have value far beyond what an overly mundane obsession with the 'materialistic' can offer...

The 'shrines' weren't wasted effort. I'm glad they are there.
St. Pauls Cathedral wasn't 'wasted effort'. And I'm glad it's there.
Westminster Abbey wasn't 'wasted effort'. I'm glad it's there.

But of course, I can't question what you get to declare - in your ultimate wisdom - is 'danger'. Remember?
If I try to, I'll be told that I'm 'off-topic'.

I find awe and wonder in your post, Ren! :)

I don't understand how any would want to strip the wonders of the world (tied to religion or not) that are awe inspiring (by the way -- most of Kami are the very things that in fact awe us:), that are products of human creativity, and can impress serenity and the sublime from their construction. I'm completely baffled by this.

There is beauty in some religion -- I don't understand the idea that Shrines are less an art form than western atheist artwork. These shrines JAK says are not worthwhile offer up performances (some have stages for performances), dances -- art! Art! Human creativity!

Is beauty not worthwhile?

I used to worship this from my rooftop as I had a clear view (Kami resides)
http://www.yamanashi-kankou.jp/english/ ... g02_01.jpg

Where is the danger?

[Guest]

I find awe and wonder in your post, Ren! :)

Cheers... You too of course!

...oh sorry - I mean...
Correct analysis! :)

[_Ren]

I've just thought - my brother in law is not a very logical thinker. I don't think he processes information very well.

Listen to how crazy he is...
...every single week, him and a few other guys walk out onto a field specifically made for this 'strange activity' they get up to. One of them picks up a leather thingy, and runs with it.
Then (listen to this - it's nuts) a whole bunch of other guys (up to 11 at a time) try to 'jump on him'!
If one of the guys get to the end of the field without getting trampled to death, they shout TRY! (Huh?). Then, some other guy tries to kick the thingy over some strange poles at each end of the field.
They have some kind of weird scoring system. And at the end of it, apparently one side 'wins'. But they don't actually get anything for it. They just shake hands and walk off!! What the hell?!

I mean, my brother-in-law comes back every single time with all kinds of bruises and cuts. And sometimes, he's suffered serious injuries. It's CLEARLY dangerous!

What possible logical, sane purpose does this activity serve?!
If he wants to get some exercise, surely the 'logical' way would be on a nice, safe treadmill in a clean, modern air-conditioned room - listening to a hi-tech MP3 player. (Listening to... hmmm... what is 'logical' music?)

JAK - if I give you my brother-in-law's e-mail address, can you use logic and reason to talk him out of his dangerous behavior? I'm worried about him...

[_Canucklehead]

Canucklehead,

I realise you are only replying to dart, but just to add my own comments.

Yes - an extreme religious person might do as you describe.
An extreme atheist might decide that since there is no 'ultimate' point to neither human life, not the universe - that it really doesn't matter if a few nukes go off either way.

If it can be shown that such dangers are possible within any ideology (even pacifism could be considered 'dangerous', since it would allow the defenseless to be trodden underfoot), then where is the need to single out religion?

Hey, I only have a few moments to reply, but basically you are conflating atheism and nihilism.

Atheism doesn't entail nihilism.

[_Ren]

Hey Canucklehead.

All due respect - I don't believe I've 'conflated' anything. I wasn't talking about atheism 'in general'.

Of course atheism doesn't assuredly lead to nihilism.
...but what stops me - as an atheist - from embracing that ideology?

From where I'm standing, it'd looks a tad difficult for a religious person to be a nihilist. But an atheist certainly could...