DiscussMormonism.com

Two religions mentioned on this forum are Christianity and Islam. Let’s look at those. Historically, these two religions have been responsible for perhaps more wars and deaths and torture than any other.

Not all information in various documentation of the dangers of religion is applicable to the question of the dangers of religion. Here are some.

Christianity and the Crusades

Crusades 1

Crusades 2 This has a rather detailed list of atrocities connected with the Crusades.

Crusades 3

Crusades 4

Crusades 5

Chronology of Christian Crusades against Jews

Christianity & Violence 1

Christianity & Violence 2

Additional Timeline for Christian Crusades

While there are many books which document the history of atrocities of the Crusades, these are a few websites which provide documentation and support that religion is dangerous

Let’s turn to Islam second.

Islamic Dangers 1

Islamic Dangers 2

Islamic Battles & Wars

Magnitude of Islamic Atrocities

Atrocities

Atrocities against Hindus

Currently Islamic terrorism has been documented by numerous news sources.

There is much more on the dangers of religion than present time allows to list.

A significant danger comes from inherent intolerance in religious groups

Intolerance Presents Dangers

From this site, there are other links which demonstrate the dangers of religion.

Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.

JAK

Not to niggle the point, because it's well done, but I think the Crusades take a lot of flack because Christians and descendants of Christians feel guilty about it. However, they and Islamic apologists fail to acknowledge the Crusades, in a very significant way were a response to HUNDREDS of years of Islamic aggression, murder, jizya, slavery, and abuse. It wasn't until AFTER much of Christiandom was conquered and brutalized by Islamists, Moguls, and Jihadists did Christians mount a rejoinder.

That being said, I'm not going to be a "Crusades" apologist, because I also understand the political machinations behind it, the Inquisition, and other Christian atrocities, but I refuse to excuse Islamists from their culpability, which FAR exceeds ANY religious group, EVER.

The problem with religion, as far as I see it, is what it sanctions, if needed, by its adherents. From the Bible to the Quran and everything in between almost all religions (except maybe Jainists?) advocate, excuse, defend, and promote violence within their "holy" books. Their gods are gods of war. They make this universe a place of war. We have the ability, as human beings to rise above this, but as long as we revere books that contain and give safe harbor to violence then we will not, ever, completely be above levying death on others who do not believe like us. In other words, our violent nature, our violent inborn ideologies find the perfect excuse for manifestation via these death cults and their books.

Once again... What a shame.

If an honest and nonrespector of persons God exists, then there can only be one God-authorized denomination/religion/philosophy

bcspace wrote:If an honest and nonrespector of persons God exists, then there can only be one God-authorized denomination/religion/philosophy

You mean The Highlander?

I would prefer to say that these are the potential dangers of religion.

The overwhelming majority of people will never raise a weapon for the sake of their religion, and in most cases, Islam included, religion is a guide for a more loving, peaceful and ethical life.

Megalomaniacs that come to power will do so using whatever vehicle is available to them. Often times, that vehicle is religion, but other times it may be patriotism (such as the Roman conquests), feigned threats (such as our current war with Iraq), riches (the Conquistadors), etc.

bcspace wrote:If an honest and nonrespector of persons God exists, then there can only be one God-authorized denomination/religion/philosophy

But you're making assumption that god is honest and a nonrespector of persons. How do you know that? Maybe god is really a little kid with a magnifying glass and a garden hose, and we're just ants on an ant hill. That would explain the global flood and the upcoming fire apocolypse.

Scottie wrote:I would prefer to say that these are the potential dangers of religion.

The overwhelming majority of people will never raise a weapon for the sake of their religion, and in most cases, Islam included, religion is a guide for a more loving, peaceful and ethical life.

Megalomaniacs that come to power will do so using whatever vehicle is available to them. Often times, that vehicle is religion, but other times it may be patriotism (such as the Roman conquests), feigned threats (such as our current war with Iraq), riches (the Conquistadors), etc.

antishock8 was generally correct in his observations.

Scottie,

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” JAK

While it is generally correct that most people today would not raise a weapon for the sake of their religion, they would and do raise weapons and ask for God’s blessing as they destroy, maim and kill others against whom they wage destruction and death.

How often have we heard President Bush say: “God bless America!”? Just what does that mean as he has said it in conjunction with the war in Iraq? It means the simplistic view it expresses. God be on America’s side as it wages war against others who are not on God’s side. Bush (and many other Americans) has conjoined God and country.

While your statement is correct on the face of it, war is still defended today and God’s blessing is expressed as applied to the USA.

Scottie stated:
The overwhelming majority of people will never raise a weapon for the sake of their religion, and in most cases, Islam included, religion is a guide for a more loving, peaceful and ethical life. (bold emphasis added for focus)

Some in religion, preach love as they practice killing of others. Religion has not historically been a “guide for more loving, peaceful and ethical life.”

On the contrary, religion has been invoked, God, has been invoked to bless America, as it plunges into war with weapons expressly designed to kill other humans in self-interest. Consider the consequences if G.W.Bush had said: We know that God opposes killing and destruction, and we know that we should demonstrate love even to our enemies, BUT, we, the USA, will attack Iraq from the air, in the middle of the night, from 30,000 ft. and bomb the capital city as well as other cities in an effort to dismantle “the axis of evil.” (The quote is that of Bush.)

But Bush did not do that. Bush invoked [i]God to support the American attack of Iraq.

He so conjoined patriotism with religion against a non-existent host of “weapons of mass destruction.”

Contrary to your statement, it is the peaceful, loving USA which undertook the mass killing of anyone in the circle of its thousands of bombs on a country which was (as we now know) virtually devoid of any military power.

Scottie stated:
Megalomaniacs that come to power will do so using whatever vehicle is available to them. Often times, that vehicle is religion, but other times it may be patriotism (such as the Roman conquests), feigned threats (such as our current war with Iraq), riches (the Conquistadors), etc.

That “vehicle” is often religion and military power against others who are regarded as “enemy.” There is no separation of religion and patriotism as it is applied today by the Bush administration. Bush has identified himself as a religious right-wing Christian. He obtained nearly 100% of the right-wing, religious Christians in both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential election.

We do not need to go back in history to the “Roman conquests” to have clear, precise link of religion (Christianity) to the mass killing of other humans while invoking God’s blessing. To think otherwise is self-deception.

JAK

It helps to actually know what you're talking about with the crusades. Unfortunately, JAK knows virtually nothing. He likes the myth, and he accepts it uncritically. I challenged him in the past on this and he fled the scene. Now he is back with his "research" that consists of web articles, mostly written by those who hate Christianity.

The Crusades were an attempt to reclaim Jerusalem from approaching Islamic armies.

The fact is "Christianity" sat back and watched Islam conquer two thirds of its territories before finally deciding to take a stand with the first Crusade. The reason it didn't fight back for so many centuries, was because Christainity - a peaceful ideology - was the religion of the state. If it were any other political philosophy that ruled over Europe, the retaliations would have occurred much earlier. In the end, it was the grotesque imagery of the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, which set the Christian world ablaze in the effort to save them and the Holy City once controlled by Christians.

Cutting and pasting web links from Muslim and atheist blowhards about the crusades is hardly going to strike anyone as informed.

We do not need to go back in history to the “Roman conquests” to have clear, precise link of religion (Christianity) to the mass killing of other humans while invoking God’s blessing. To think otherwise is self-deception.

Then why do you? If it is truly such common phenomena, then why do you always have to run back to 10th century to get your "proof"?

You think the inquisition and the crusades are your aces in the hole, but this is only because you're ignorant on both topics. You're a know-nothing who represents exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Atheists can be dangerous with ignorance just the same as any theist. You're spouting ignorance and hate, yet we're supposed to believe you're not passionate in your atheism?

The real danger is fanaticism. Bad people will do bad. If they are religious, they will use their religion as a catalyst. If they are political they will use their politics as a catalyst. Humans kill people, not religion, not politics. It just so happens that humans are more likely to become violent if they are fanatical in whatever it is that they are passionate about. Not everyone is a religious fanatic and not everyone is a political fanatic. Passionate members of MADD might become violent towards drunk drivers. Passionate basketball players might go crazy when they're fouled too hard. A man who is madly in love with his wife might kill her if he finds her in bed with another man. Is marriage therefore dangerous? Domestic violence is far greater an occurence than orgaized religious violence, so maybe we should pass laws to prevent men and women from living together?

dartagnan wrote:... so maybe we should pass laws to prevent men and women from living together?

Pfft. I'm all for that. http://www.amazon.com/Village-Round-Squ ... 0316328626