luvluv

ohwillke, I really believe that your arguments for believing the holocaust to be the result of Hitlers Christianity to be totally a function of your animousity towards religion in general. Why is it that a holocaust was not undertaken in every other Christian society, but only in that society which was most enamoured with the science of eugenics and race theory (both sciences, though bad ones). We'll just agree to disagree on that point.

As to the wars, I'm sure many of them might have ended up being drains on the coffers, but I am sure that was not the plan. It is entirely possible that the Crusaders inteded to profit, and underestimated their adversaries. I actually thought I remember reading that some of the subsequent Crusades were undertaken in order to recoup loses from the first. As to the rest of your statments, the thought that land was taken in order to finance proselytizing is kind of circular, because they were also proselytizing to take land, or do you think that they really partitioned Africa for spiritual reasons? I obviously will not go through every war in the history of man with you, but it is simply my feeling that there have been very, very few wars fought purely over religion (and certainly not the Revolutionary War, of all things).

I will conceed to you Confucious, however. About the rest of the men you mention, I respectfully disagree. But still it would seem that religion produces Saints more readily than non-religion. (And though it is non-theistic, it could be argued that Confucianism is a religion. That is what it is usually called)

luvluv

JL I never said that religion didn't have some severe marks against it. But my point was that secular or atheist bad men have been as bad as religious bad men, and that relgious good men have been better than non-religions good men.

And turt, I really don't care what Hitchens thinks of Mother Teresa.

Why do you folks think it is necessary to smear people to make your point? First Martin Luther King now Mother Teresa?

ohwilleke

Because most non-Nazi Christian societies were not under the control of ruthless, unfettered dictators (don't forget the Italy as well as Germany participated). Besides which, there is in fact a long, long history of pogroms against Jews in almost every Christian society in Europe. . . . not all managed or even tried to kill every Jew in sight, but some of these, particularly in Spain, forced whole Jewish families and communities underground where they lived as "false Christians" for their own survival.

Certainly not every war is a religious war. I left many of the less religious wars out (e.g. the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the War between the Spanish and the Moors ending in 1492 despite the fact that the combatants were of different religions, the Maori Wars in New Zealand, the Wars against Native American tribes in the United States, the Gulf War, The War of the Roses, etc.)

My point is that it isn't a coincidence that the colonies with strong religious difference from England left, while those with similar beliefs stayed. Simply put, the morality of Ireland and America did differ from that of England, and so colony status chaffed. Religion was a factor in motivating people to be unhappy with their colonial power among many. But, where the rule was by like minded people, colonial rule did not seem so burdensome.

Regarding the division of Africa, colonial empires, by and large weren't established by way of war per se. Usually, the missionaries came first, and the merchants followed, after which the military men and government officials went. England, for instance, didn't simply conquer India militarily in the way the Ghengis Khan conquered his territories, and the Dutch did not subjugate much of Indonesia by use of armies in the field, although both efforts did involve selective use of military force. Similarly, the partition of Africa (and South America for that matter, whose division into Portugese and Spanish territory was brokered by a long forgotten Pope), was made more in the treaty room than on the field of battle. Even the conquestadors, killed far more people with disease than force of arms.

The Japanese don't consider Confucianism a religion. They consider Shinto, Buddhism (which is also non-theistic, but has metaphysical elements) and Taoism (which does not involve a deity per se but also has metaphysical elements) as their religions. Also, if you are willing to so broadly define what a religion is, you ought to throw in Communism, Anarchism, Secular Humanism, Nationalism, and all sorts of other powerful movements that affected many people.

Also, even if Confucianism has become a religion, Confucius himself was not a religious man.

If your proposition is that someone must have powerful philosophical beliefs to be a Saint like moral leader, I'll agree, almost by definition. But, this isn't the point of your post. Your point is to argue that god belief as practiced through religion is necessary to be a Saint like moral leader, which is something I don't think the facts support.

As to the other people I cited: Felix Adler, Foucault, John Stuart Mill, and Aristotle, whom I compared to St. Olaf, Aquinas, Dwight Moody and Calvin.

I'm curious to see who you would find would qualify as a "Saint", in your book. Clearly, many Catholic Saints wouldn't qualify. Would St. Olaf? Would Acquinas? Would Dwight Moody? Would Calvin?

I suppose that St. Olaf wouldn't qualify since he is remembered for his actions in the political sphere rather than being a personal example (or perhaps because he just isn't that well known). St. Thomas Acquinas clearly wouldn't qualify, as he sat on his duff and wrote philosophy texts all day, hardly Saintlike. Dwight Moody must not qualify because he hasn't been dead long enough. And Calvin, is remembered more for his organizational genius than his personal moral example (he, for instance, presided over the execution of heretics) -- and took second bannan in the Reformation to Luther who got the ball rolling.

Who does qualify as a theistic Saint? It sounds to me like Jesus and Muhammed and Moses are in, but who else qualifies? Half of dozen in the history of humanity? Or, are you more generous than that?

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

JL

OK. I give up.

You can't offer religious moral crusaders as validation of your point and not expect to have their morality scrutinized.

Vorkosigan

And turt, I really don't care what Hitchens thinks of Mother Teresa.

Luv, your opinion on Hitchen's opinion was not asked. Rather, what I wondered was whether you had read any of the many local and international critics of her ruthless, greedy, shallow, authoritarian and self-promoting behavior? For example, because MT re-uses needles, provides no treatment, and allows many to die who otherwise might have lived, some Indian doctors have been trying to get her shut down for years.

You hold MT up as an example of a saint. Fine -- we are entitled to challenge your definition of what a "saint" is. In MT's case, it is well-known that she consorted with dictators, Enver Hoxha in Albania, and the Duvalier family in the Caribbean. She approved Princess Diana's divorce, although she constantly criticizes the idea of divorce. She thinks suffering is good, and that it beautifies. She conducts no health outreach or prevention programs, she does not use her money to teach or improve medical facilities in her area (in fact, she keeps it outside of India so it won't be reported publicly). She baptizes people against their wishes after they are dead.

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I object to her ethics. They strike me as inhuman and evil. To my mind she has not served others, but instead has used the suffering others to advance agendas she supports, such as right-wing Catholic Christianity.

Now, please deal with these facts. They are not Hitchen's "opinions."

Michael

tronvillain

luvluv:
Well, I wouldn't die for it, though there is some level of risk I would accept for it. Still, what I actually said was if someone if someone would not be willing to die for a cause without being decieved, then the cause is not worth dying for. Or rather, they wouldn't consider the cause worth dying for.

Are you insane? I defy you to show me where I said that. Also, I see you avoided addressing my other point:

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Ms. Siv

Why not ? It fits you like a glove. You dont believe the Bible to be 100% fact. But you think religion results in good things, even though it is not factual.

On what basis ?
Also, doesn't the Bible also describe many stories of rape, plunder, killing etc ?

Proves you did not understand it. It was a logical proof of how religious morality is absolute bunkum

Again, Einstein, Darwin, Russell etc were all moral men too. Also many of the founding fathers of USA were not religious. They were Deists (so no belief in a personal God). Dont you believe there were inspiring, charismatic, moral men ?
Considering that they represented less than 10% of the population, that was an even greater achievement.

This religion produces great morality stuff is a myth, plain and simple.

- Sivakami.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

Ms. Siv

But the crucial difference is that religion claims to give you morals, science does not.

- Sivakami.

Ms. Siv

And why do you think most of us here decided not to have religion ? Because it was a bad thing

- Sivakami.

ju'iblex

Yes, my point exactly, in regards to Western European history, Christian menwrote the history books. And doesnt the Church decide who does and doesnt qualify to become a saint? Thats a pretty damn good reason why there arent any atheist saints wouldnt you say?

During the past one hundred years, Europe has not been a true theocracy, whereas, as far as history is concerned, Western Europe was ruled by the Christian Church for a massive amount of time. In which accurate history wasnt the agenda, it was control over people and the maintenance of faith. That is where your point fails.

Well 15 years isnt that long. And no, i cant name a non-religious "saint". Simply because the definition of saint does not allow for anyone who is not Christian. (in my opinion). Just think about the origins of the word, Latin: sanctus, meaning holy.
This sentence not only implies your belief that Western history is completely objective and always has been (wrong), but it also compares a relatively easy and likely event to something completely absurd and without evidence.