All religions are dangerous?

[_GoodK]

What about the public policy that is inspired by religious dogma?

That's the nature of a democracy. The majority usually gets its way. But what is so dangerous about public policy inspired by religion?

What about the people wasting away in jail for victimless crimes (sins)?

??? You lost me on that one.

I was just trying to point out that crimes that are considered victimless, are a reason public policy is being poisoned by religion. The drug abusers in prison, women in jail for prostitution, etc..

[_Moniker]

Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????

Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl

OMG! He said it in the post where he was talking to me!!!!!!!!!

*smacks forehead* Yes, I think I am on my own........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uYEM2osYQ

[_Mercury]

Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????

Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl

Bad Language Image used by Merc and edited by Bond

Stop it jersey.

[_Bond...James Bond]

That reality demonstrates the Amish disregard education in a time when university education level is required for virtually all fields of honest intellectual inquiry. Hence, Amish children are placed in danger and at risk as they are deprived of even a high school education as they face a world with many who are more informed than they are.

The danger is primarily to the Amish people (or youth) rather than to others. However, you provided us with an example in which the Amish placed themselves and you at risk as a result of a practice (horse and buggy on modern highways designed for cars and truck moving at 55 MPH). That practice is rooted in their religion. I addressed it only because you provided the example.

Again, the danger which religion poses is largely to those who substitute doctrine for discovery. They may not actually choose to be ignorant. They are following the religious beliefs and practices of their parents and grandparents. They are guided into avoidance of information and education in favor of religious dogma and doctrine. It is that which places them in danger and at risk.

Do you even know any Amish people? I do. I went to school with a few in rural Kentucky. And I must tell you...that alot of them were/are very content people. Ignorant of the larger world sure, but I think the simple life they lead is something to be admired. Ignorance is bliss...and somedays seems almost perferable to the melancholy that comes from knowing the whole truth about certain events.

As to horse and buggies on the roads...a little patience will allow for safety and for a car to pass them. Jeez. I've driven around horse and buggies for many years and don't ever recall them being in accidents. Heck the fact that the horse and buggy drivers are almost certainly going to be sober makes them perferable to soused people behind the wheel of a two ton automobile.

[Guest]

Jersey Girl and Schmo,

I HAVE been trying to tie down what is meant by words such as 'religion', 'dogma', 'danger' etc.
JAK has informed me that it is 'off-topic' to question at least one example of 'danger' that I disagree with - driving horse-drawn buggies on modern roads.

He is allowed to make the claim that something is 'dangerous', and I'm not allowed to question that.
It is dangerous because he says so - apparently.

*shrug* I don't think I'm the one that is disinterested in getting some clarity here.


marg,

If you are saying all religions have dogma then you are disagreeing with Moniker.

I didn't say all religions marg. I said dogmatism exists within 'religion'. (i.e. some religions, to greater or lesser extents).

Where have I ever claimed all religious belief is dogmatic? Just so you know I haven’t.

Ok fine. This wasn't clear to me. So thanks for clearing that up.

Because that is the issue here whether or not Shintoism has any dogma.

Does any part of the Shintoism 'system' try to enforce the principle on it's 'believers' that it's version of reality is not to be 'questioned'? Is there any sense of that present in the system? I don't mean that they have beliefs at all - I mean that they also teach 'And you MUST believe this, and not question it...'
That 'emphasis' is necessary for the 'teaching' to be accurately labeled as 'dogma'. If you don't believe me, check the definition of 'dogma'.

I already said that I thought dogma in religion can go beyond claims to the supernatural. So where have I indicated dogma must be false? I wish you wouldn’t make assumptions

Sure - apologies. I shouldn't have let the frustrations in other parts of this discussion pop up there....

Now you are adding a new feature not mentioned previously to what constitutes “dogma”.

Not really. I'm more trying to emphasise so that you get what I'm trying to say. A system could just say 'Don't question this version of reality' - and that's it. But I'm not aware of any that empasise that those beliefs shouldn't be questioned that don't have some kind of 'penalty' (Lower kindgom, hell, excommunication etc.) in place. Otherwise, the 'encouragement' to 'stay in line' would be fairly weak.

Is that truly a necessary requirement of religious dogma or is that just something you are making up to suit your purposes?

In my observation, I believe it's a regular pattern when dogma is involved - yes. If you don't believe as the group want you to, then there will be 'consequences. Certainly some negative label will be thrown your way - at least...

And if religious dogma are beliefs which are necessarily part of the system of any religion

But that is not the full definition of dogma. It isn't just a 'set of beliefs'. You tell me not to make assumptions about what you think, and yet I have to come to some conclusion based on what you've just said here.

Can anyone be an adherent of a religious system and not believe in the claims to the supernatural beings of that system?

The religious system 'proposes' a set of beliefs, but if the emphasis of a religion is placed on 'ritual' rather than 'belief', then no - you don't 'really' have to believe at all.
It's about how much the belief system 'cares' that you MUST believe the 'truths' it proposes, and whether you shouldn't question them - 'or else'. You might get bored of me saying that, but that is essential to the concept of 'dogma'.

Dogmas aren't just beliefs. They are beliefs that are not to be questioned, 'or else'. You can't seem to separate that concept from 'beliefs that define a religion'.

[_Ren]

As to why the word 'dogma' is important in relation to this discussion? In my mind, the following reasons:

1. I agree that the uncritical swallowing of 'truth by assertion' - that can have impact on practical decisions - has definitive potential to be 'dangerous'.
2. Dogma can encourage uncritical swallowing of 'truths'.
3. It is a central word in JAK's continuous mantra:

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

However,
If it is not only true that...

Not all religion is dogmatic

...but also that...

Not all dogma is religious

...then the generalisation being aimed at religion in this thread is inaccurate - even based on the axioms of those making the claims against religion!

Not all religions, religious belief or religious attitudes are dogmatic.
Not all religions, religious belief of religious attitudes are equal.
Not all religions are dangerous. Not all religious belief is dangerous.


Why do people think linking to a few religious 'extremists' counters this point? Yes - we all know that there are 'some' religious extremists.
There are also 'English' football fans that are hooligans. But not all English football fans are hooligans. And many English football fans are sick and tired of being 'labeled' by the bad behaviour of the hooligans. The idea that all football fans are 'thugs' to some degree. That the sport itself is a 'thuggish' sport.
...I completely understand their frustration...

[Guest]

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'.

[_Canucklehead]

Dartagnan:

What hypothetical scenario would reinforce your theory? Show me an example where you and I would make decisions in the same situation, whereas mine would be a dangerous decision and yours a safe one, simply because I believe in God and you don't. I've asked this several times the past couple of days

Maybe JAK hasn't given you an example, but I have:

This is such an easy challenge!! I expect that nobody has replied because it is an inane question.

Here's one that I just thought of before even finishing to read your post. Imagine that the leader of a powerful country armed with nuclear weapons believes that his god has told him that the world will end in a fiery armageddon in which the wicked are burned. This armageddon will usher in the return of his god. Another country, predominantly comprised of adherents to a different religion has declared an "unholy war". Now .... can you imagine how this theist might react differently in this situation than, say, an atheist who doesn't believe that there is a life after this one and that this is the only world we humans will ever get to inhabit. Didn't require much imagination did it?

I don't want to concoct a hypothetical situation for you personally, but the one I provided certainly shows how religious beliefs can be dangerous.

[Guest]

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?

[_antishock8]

Dartagnan:

What hypothetical scenario would reinforce your theory? Show me an example where you and I would make decisions in the same situation, whereas mine would be a dangerous decision and yours a safe one, simply because I believe in God and you don't. I've asked this several times the past couple of days

Maybe JAK hasn't given you an example, but I have:

This is such an easy challenge!! I expect that nobody has replied because it is an inane question.

Here's one that I just thought of before even finishing to read your post. Imagine that the leader of a powerful country armed with nuclear weapons believes that his god has told him that the world will end in a fiery armageddon in which the wicked are burned. This armageddon will usher in the return of his god. Another country, predominantly comprised of adherents to a different religion has declared an "unholy war". Now .... can you imagine how this theist might react differently in this situation than, say, an atheist who doesn't believe that there is a life after this one and that this is the only world we humans will ever get to inhabit. Didn't require much imagination did it?

I don't want to concoct a hypothetical situation for you personally, but the one I provided certainly shows how religious beliefs can be dangerous.

I second that. I actually provided Pakistani state policy reference Quranic warfare and possible nuclear warfare. In other words, the Quran advocates and authorizes terror in order to subdue the kaffir, and even more troubling is that it's state policy, a bona fide Islamic ruling on war, written by a Pakistani Army Brigadier under the direction of the Army Chief of Staff and includes a legal certification that the book conforms to Islamic and Pakistani law.

Not ALL religion is dangerous. To accuse a pacifist of being dangrous, 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.