Opera Nut

since someone was talking about Christian charities and the good they do, I have a couple of institutions that haven't been mentioned as being responsible for allowing large amounts of suffering that they could have helped, but didn't due to their doctrines.

ONE, what about the mothers in Catholic hospitals allowed to die in childbirth in order to save the baby, since that's the Catholic doctrine, leaving Daddy to raise a bunch of kids alone? When a C section would have been the right answer and both could live? Or women who need an abortion for their health, like diabetes and heart disease and other diseases in which pregnancy can be fatal to the mother? Or what about the desperate pregnant woman who just says "If you don't give me an abortion, I will kill myself and the blood of two of us will be on your hands? I'll leave you the bloody coathanger at the suicide scene for your souvenir to remember me by???"


TWO, what about the zillions of dollars Mother Teresa had which were not used for any medical cures or relief of suffering since she thought suffering was redemptive? The people she allegedly "helped" by withholding care didn't think it was redemptive, they just thought God was a heartless bastard.

Sojourner553

Opera Nut, others:

I am not disagreeing with the excesses you mention.

Still, I take strong exception to the theme that this means ALL Christians partake in these.

I would argue in place:

* Not all Christians are alike

and not only that...

* Not all atheists are alike either.

I find it more instructive to try and analyze what makes SOME theists (including Christians) AND atheists commit crimes against humanity, when in their mind this is done under the auspices of a "greater cause".

Some people are naturally evil/corrupt and use religion/ nonreligion to further their own ends. But good people can also do evil when following an ideology that teaches there is a "higher good" or desired social outcome that is more important that human rights and dignity.

Obviously fundamentalist religious groups follow this type of ideology. But is ALSO applies to fundamentalist atheist groups. Marxism communists believe(d) in a creed that some invisible force is moving civilization towards a progressive path over time, and that any individuals must not be allowed to impede in this important progress.

On the flip side:
There are a good number of Christians who are wonderful humanists (placing individual human dignity above creed), and are strongly opposed to giving absolute power to authorities that would commit atrocities; same as with Muslims, Jews, AND atheists.

===============================

Now for you emotionalists: Don't think I haven't suffered PERSONALLY from the hands of fundamentalism! My Baptist sister purposely exposed me to dangerous bacterial toxins when I was pregnant (the first time) stating it was "God's Will" if it really harmed my baby. I had a miscarriage (I am convinced) due to this trauma. The mean- hardness and self-righteous attitude my sister portrayed during this entire period is enough to give anyone nightmares. (Like Bette Davis in "Die, Die My Darling")

Was my sister's attitudes abominable? Absolutely. Was it religiously inspired? Actually, I think her religion hardened her pre-existing attitudes/disposition, so that she felt "comfortable" with them . Are all Christians just like her? Absolutely not! Most of the ordinary people I sought solace from in the following years (from co-workers, taxi-cab drivers, etc)--were mostly Christian, and without exception horrified at her attitude.

What is my position on religion: I will generally not argue whether or not one chooses to believe in God or an afterlife. If a person wants to believe Jesus is a/the symbol for this, that is just fine with me too.

But-- if a person claims sacred books/ laws are true, that all of humanity should be placed under some religious authority who will "rule" wisely -- then it is time to pull out the microscope to critically examine the assumptions and facts. And I will be joining in with many of you looking primarily at the "warts" as this is where the true testing should be.

Therefore, when I debate Bede, I often focus on the "warts" of Christian theology/history -- This is because I do not want to see these "papered over" as immaterial by him. Just as the Germans have their Nazi holocaust museum to serve as a reminder of inhumane abuses of power, I think it is important to remind the public of the excesses of religious fundamentalism.

Bede is presenting evidence he feels shows the Catholics were not really conservative religious zealots in medieval and Reformation times. That the inhumanity and atrocities reported in "popular" literature have some degree of inaccuracies to them.

I would like to take his "proof" and critically examine them on their own merits.... For those who have read any of my posts, I think you will find me engaging in tough battle with Bede.

But can we cut the "ALL Christians are evil" crap?

It kills all the intellectual content, not to mention I will feel it my duty to side with him against you.


Sojourner

beyelzu

i do not think that all theists are evil.

however, when a society or group believes that virtue is more important than freedom. it becomes persmissible to do evil things to further humanities virtue.

f'instance: mother theresa believed that suffering was morally good. then it makes sense to not ease suffering.

and i also think that dogmatic systems of belief more often lead to such problems. because by their nature dogmatic systems of belief are resistant to logic, evidence and reason. anyone who has argued with a theist ought to realize this.

i am saddened to hear what your sister did to you, i have never had such a horrible personal experience with a theist.


as far as christianity goes, there are parts of the bible that obviously allow horrendous acts by those that ar True Christians tm. and it bothers me when christians claim the true scotsman action when evidence of christians doing evil things because of there faith are apparent.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew-previously):I think that the harm done in the name of God outweighs the good --by a long shot.

(Layman): Sounds suspiciously like mere prejudice talking.
(Fr Andrew-currently): No...it's opinion based on years spent collecting individual accounts of the harm that religion has caused and continues to cause. I've got quite a list.
At the same time I've been polling theists for the good that religion has done.
That list is a bit shorter.


(Layman): I already discussed introducing prohibitions and stigma against infanticide to the western world.
(Fr Andrew): I think that the best you can say is that Christianity inherited it's distaste for infanticide (a humane notion who's time probably had come) from the Jews. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, railed against the practice.
At that, infanticide was not unknown among early Christians. Even 100 or so years after the beginning of their religion, the author of The Letter of Barnabas (so often quoted by today's anti-choice people) found it necessary to admonish Christians to refrain from killng "...either the fetus by abortion or the newborn..."
In fact, it was 50 years beyond Christianity's establishment as the state religion of the Roman Empire before infanticide was criminalized.

So far as introducing prohibitions, etc against infanticide to "the western world"--that was Christianity's sphere of influence, so you're really not saying very much.
Judaism introduced it to the world. Probably.

With respect to benevolent organizations founded by theists...I won't deny that (but don't kid yourself that it's a Christian phenomenon). Non-theists, although no less benevolent individually, are notoriously hard to organize--I've established a Secular Outreach in my community, but it's been very tough going.
I don't buy into the notion that religious influence is what produces donations. I think that charitable people are charitable--religious or not.
While I certainly agree that organized religion has been a source of help to many, as Dr Rick (and others) have pointed out, weighed against the suffering and misery that it's caused, we'd be better off without it. At least that's the direction in which my research seems to point.

Bree

I guess my question is this: why are we squabbling over a stupid numbers game? I don't care if 1, 10, 100, or 100,000 million were killed in the name of Christ, God, or whatever else. The fact that someone had to die because of some stupid faerie tale - that's the whole point. For me, the death toll will never be low enough for me to wipe my brow and say "Thank God!" The crimes committed against humanity because of this supposedly just, loving God will always be just as terrible.

Sojourner553

But of course! I call this group “fundamentalists”. My point is that there are fundamentalist atheists as well. I detest ALL fundies – be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, OR atheist. My sister was a “fundie” Christian during this time period.

Therefore, while I agree with the posters on the atrocities, I DISagree over how to draw the lines: Instead of theists vs atheists, I draw my lines as humanists vs fundamentalists. Substitute fundamentalists in the rants above (instead of theists or Christians) and I’m basically in agreement.

Mother Theresa is a complex example. I disagree she felt suffering for its own sake was “good”. What I have read would indicate she felt suffering was a “natural” state imposed by God and that everyone should just wait for their award in heaven.

On the “good” side of the ledger: I think she was driven by some genuine humanitarianism. I think her cheerfulness genuinely made people “feel” more hope and this is often very healing itself. (Both physically and mentally—ie making the person generally happier for the hope.)

On the “bad” side of the ledger, I remember reading (I was influenced by the Christopher Hitchens article) how she diverted millions in donations meant for the poor to the Catholic hierarchy. Maybe some of this was spent on other poor groups (Catholics have a lot of charities). Of course, I’m sure not ALL of this went to charities either. And your point is taken that the “true” care of the poor in terms of physical support (ie medicines, therapy, etc) took a back seat to dogma AND Church politics.

I would guess that theists have a higher rate of fundamentalism. But I really have no proof of this, and therefore would not state this as fact in a debate. There are a sizeable number of atheist fundie groups. Ayn Rand and her libertarian atheist followers I count, along with followers of Madalyn O’Hare, and of course Karl Marx. I would cringe if any one of these latter fundie atheists groups obtained power in society, along with the fundie religious groups. (I agree though that Ayn Rand and Madalyn O’Hare followers would not commit suicide to blow up airplanes, because there IS no belief in a future reward after death. They would just help make THIS life a political/social hell.)

You were “saddened.” I was in a rage for years over it. It is what prodded me to go out and research exactly what religion was “all about”; how could a person be absolutely convinced they “knew God’s Will,” when the hardening of her heart was so apparent. (I left out the general meanness in other areas she exhibited during the whole time.)

My sister has mellowed over the years. (My mother thinks my sister was just “envious” of me during this period.) Of course my sister has never formally apologized. When I brought the subject up once, her voice dropped immediately to that icy tone:. "Of course SHE wasn't the cause of my miscarriage, there was no proof, etc, etc.”

And indeed, there was no smoking gun. I attributed my miscarriage to my psychological reaction to the meanness, the feeling of a loss of control—in short the stress it induced. I have known and read of similar reactions. I’ll mention two: A friend of mine had a miscarriage immediately following a berating by a boss that she did not know the “first” thing about Marketing 101 (she was a buyer). Immediately following the Oklahoma bombing, a Muslim woman had a miscarriage following being intimated with her family by a group of rednecks who blamed all Arabs for the attack (ie before McVeigh was identified as the culprit).


Absolutely. Please do not desist in this.

But remember most people naturally want to be proud of their heritage – including religion and culture. Emotional attacks serve no purpose, because it short circuits any rational response.

Why not debate the facts in a curteous form. True, it’s harder work. But you might find that things are not always black vs white, but there are some shades of gray – on both sides.

Also here is a good test to catch yourself if you are stereotyping.

First an example:
When I was in high school, a young boy I babysat for told me how HE wasn’t prejudiced against blacks, but his uncle was. He assured me his uncle had “good cause”. You see he was up on a ladder and a black man walked under it (on purpose) tipping it and causing him harm from a bad fall.

I said with little pause: “If a white man had done the same thing, would your uncle hate all white men?”

I had to repeat this twice before he got it. “Oh…I get it” he said, looking very thoughtful.

And that is my point to you Beyelzu: If someone rattled off all the atrocities that atheists have committed, would that convince you that all or most atheists are “evil”? Probably not. Well, the same applies to Christians. You see, most people implicitly understand the variations in their own group, but have to be reminded that outsiders are likewise not all “the same”.

Test yourself on this when you are about to make an accusation, to see if flipping the subjects around gives you the same reaction.

Sojourner

beyelzu

sojourner,(edited cuz i forgot to address my post)

i have never thought much about stereotyping christians. which i guess makes me something of a bigot. i do not think that objectivists are bad people or that if we had an objectivist society it would be a living hell. i personally like ayn rand, love atlas shrugged(if repetitious) and absolutely love fountainhead. but although i agree with some of it, i am not an objectivist. note, until 3 days ago, i kind of thought that i was. who is Madalyn O’Hare?


i havent thought much about lumping all christians together, being in georgia, i am generally surrounded by fundamentalists, so its very easy to stereotype. and i have never really considered communism as a form of atheism. i will have to think more about that subject.

i do think that theism at best is simply useless.
but i will use your test in the future.

here is my quick test of fundamentalist: would this person outlaw systems of belief that are different from their own

Amos

Would that be some more protestant theology by any chance?

Dr Rick

You can cut it anytime you want, Sojourner; it will only persist as long as you or any apologist argues this strawman.

Challenging apologists that would white-wash the terrible history of Christianity is not a proclamation or even an implication that "all Christians are evil." That's just a fallacious strawman; a false argument imposed by the apologists on this thread that are grossly misrepresenting and trivializing the Inquisitions. Calling them on their misleading propaganda playing to the common misperception that witchcraft was the primary target of Rome during these campaigns ("not all that many witches were 'executed' during the Inquisitions") does not mean or imply that "all Christians are evil."

The Inquisitions were a horror almost beyond comprehension; millions, (or perhaps less; we're unlikely to ever know the numbers for sure), the vast majority of which were not accused or tried for witchcraft, were slaughtered during these campaigns, millions were terrorized by them, and yet they are only a portion of the atrocities committed through the dark history of Christianity. That Christians have done some good things, or that communists have done some even worse things, is not relevant to the apologistic argument posted here that tries to minimize the horrible evil of the Inquisitions.

No one on this thread has said or even implied otherwise.

Maybe, but that's not what's being argued here.

I don't agree with the first part of that, but it's not really relevant, anyways.

Quote:

But good people can also do evil when following an ideology that teaches there is a "higher good" or desired social outcome that is more important that human rights and dignity.

I do agree with that, but I'm not so sure it's relevant, either.

Quote:

Obviously fundamentalist religious groups follow this type of ideology. But is ALSO applies to fundamentalist atheist groups. Marxism communists believe(d) in a creed that some invisible force is moving civilization towards a progressive path over time, and that any individuals must not be allowed to impede in this important progress.

Communism is not atheism nor is atheism communism, and there is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. Atheism is lack of belief in gods; it is neither a system of government nor a religion. Communists may or may not be theists. Christian communists and atheist communists may murder in the name of communism, Christian communists or non-communists may kill in the name of Christianity, but no one kills in the name of absence of belief.

That's irrelevant, though I do agree with you.

I would be amazed if even Bede agreed with your assessment of his position here; that is most certainly not what he has argued. In between the personal attacks and attempts at impressing us with his limited credentials, Bede posted some evidence that not so many witches as commonly believed were tried and executed during the Inquisitions. That's fair enough, but when challenged with the evidence that:

1) witches comprised only a small minority of the causalties inflicted by the Inquisitions.

and

2) whether it's tens of thousands or millions of victims, they were repugnant affairs

he chose to storm-off after leveling some really childish insults against those that had engaged him.

I haven't read your other posts vis a vis Bede, but that's not germane.

Take whatever "side" you want. What has impeded rational exchange on this thread has been the fallacious ad hominems and strawmen.

Rick

Sojourner553

Absolutely!

Fundamentalists generally view themselves as
special members of an "elite" group, who are fighting some perceived "Enemy" (either internally from within, or more common from some EXTERNAL threat). This "Enemy" is preventing the leaders from transforming the community into some utopian or heaven-like existence. As such, the leaders believe that
they are justified in "closing" off society from "heretical" ideas.

In order to keep heretical ideas out, and impose the "correct" morality and beliefs on the rest of the community, fundamentalists believe in the desirability of a strong AUTHORITY to police their view of morality on the rest of the community. Consequently INDIVIDUAL freedoms and rights are not respected--and even condemned.

Check out my site sometime. (I wrote it from organizing my thoughts during my "search" on religion after my bout with my sister.)


http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html

Section II critically analyzes biblical storeis in the NT (by topic, birth, childhood, death, resurrection, etc)

Section V examines the history of Christianity.

Section X explores the religious/philosophy of famous people (including Ayn Rand)

here is a link to the communism (which I referred to earlier)

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/COMMUNIS.TXT


Sojourner