Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[T'Girl]

Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No![/I]"

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has resulted in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If you don't want to be accused of being intolerant, perhaps you should not use broad brushstrokes to describe religious people. Not all religions, religious people, or religious organizations participate in culture wars. Indeed, Wiccans ought not be accused of trying to restrict birth control.

Im afraid that is just a weak generalization. Religion has caused vast damage to culture and life around the globe. It naturally does by placing emphasis on doctrinal rules and other worlds.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No![/I]"

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has result in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

If you don't want to be accused of being intolerant, perhaps you should not use broad brushstrokes to describe religious people. Not all religions, religious people, or religious organizations participate in culture wars. Indeed, Wiccans ought not be accused of trying to restrict birth control.

Im afraid that is just a weak generalization. Religion has caused vast damage to culture and life around the globe. It naturally does by placing emphasis on doctrinal rules and other worlds.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

I find the bolded part laughable. The italicised spurious at best. Religion does nothing but hold back thought, promote the deepening of division and prejudice. Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision? Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice? What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia? Perhaps those who condemn homosexuals to hell are promoting justice?

The entire history of religion is that of opression, violence, superstition, ignorance and hatred. Pop over to Ireland and witness the attrocities all done in the name of 'god'.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No![/I]"

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has result in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

Im afraid that is just a weak generalization. Religion has caused vast damage to culture and life around the globe. It naturally does by placing emphasis on doctrinal rules and other worlds.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

I find the bolded part laughable. The italicised spurious at best. Religion does nothing but hold back thought, promote the deepening of division and prejudice. Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision? Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice? What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia? Perhaps those who condemn homosexuals to hell are promoting justice?

The entire history of religion is that of opression, violence, superstition, ignorance and hatred. Pop over to Ireland and witness the attrocities all done in the name of 'god'.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

When I wrote, "Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion," I accepted all those examples implicitly. OTOH, I also argued that religion was more complex than such examples, and it cannot explain all violence/intolerance or be described as a source of only violence/intolerance. Religion has been a source of misinformation, but the first scientific texts were written by Sumerian priests; the Big Bang was theorized by a Jesuit; and the human genome was mapped by someone who has written extensively about religion. Frans de Waal has pointed out both the roots of gender inequality and the mechanism for its resolution among primates, though it's easy to accept that religion can exacerbate such behavior. However, plenty of religions practiced sexual rites--including same sex. Conversely, Plenty of politicians during the French Revolution and during the Stalinist era advocated and codified rigorous controls of women's agency and control of their reproduction (after brief eras of more open policies) without recourse to religion. And unless you are telling me you think hell is a real place, than I am not sure where the specific injustice is.

What your examples tell me is that you think you are outflanking me by bringing up examples specific to Christianity. I am not sure why such examples should upset me at all. Christianity is not the only religion, not now and certainly not since the beginning of time. There are many more non-Christians in the world than there are Christians. Some can't clearly be described as theists. There's the possibility that you aren't willing to take on the full history of religion, perhaps because you are really only interested in embarrassing Christians. You haven't addressed my examples, which I think is telling. In the long run, the fact that the Pope is Christian doesn't change the fact that MLK was as well. I make no argument that religion is good, exclusively or otherwise, nor do I argue that it is evil. It is an institution, one usually subordinate to the power of the state; it is a source for cultural values and beliefs; it can be a source for social justice and superstition. Religion exists; it is complex and varied; it is no one thing for all people. That's about as good of a generalization that can be made.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No![/I]"

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has result in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

Im afraid that is just a weak generalization. Religion has caused vast damage to culture and life around the globe. It naturally does by placing emphasis on doctrinal rules and other worlds.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

I find the bolded part laughable. The italicised spurious at best. Religion does nothing but hold back thought, promote the deepening of division and prejudice. Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision? Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice? What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia? Perhaps those who condemn homosexuals to hell are promoting justice?

The entire history of religion is that of opression, violence, superstition, ignorance and hatred. Pop over to Ireland and witness the attrocities all done in the name of 'god'.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

I could say the same thing about science. We would never have to establish rules for experiments otherwise. We've carried out atrocities on "less respected" human life like those with a mental disorder. We've damaged countless brains and caused death. And we learned from those experiments. The Nazis are an extreme example where experiments were carried out on homosexuals and Jews, less important life.

Some of that was done out of ignorance. Some out of malice. But science isn't bloodless, either. My point to all of this is that I have yet to meet a Christian who has blamed me for hurricanes. Maybe I need to get out more, but I haven't seen it. Idiots on television? All the time.

And while we are on the subject, how about you join me in asking American Atheists to branch out into community service and STOP appearing on Fox News shaming the faithful? Your belief is your belief and theirs is theirs. Do people take it too far? Sure and we shouldn't stand for that. That doesn't mean it has no redeeming qualities and its sole purpose is to maim and destroy.

 

[JoeZhang]

Reading these boards, as I often do, it kind of surprises me how we STAR TREK fans are anything but united by Gene Roddenberry's bold vision of the future. Without him, we continue to be leaderless and divided.

I simply prefer Roddenberry's view of the future circa 1966 vs. his view of the future circa 1987.

In some respects, the view we see in the adaptation of the Motion Picture is the one that is the most interesting to me.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Human religion doesn't come up in most episodes, although there are some examples of it. And nowhere (that I can remember) was there a mention of Humanity abandoning any religion.

Actually this is true.

Trek would not say outright that humanity abandoned religion entirely, but strongly implied that a large number of humans have at least agnostic views towards religion.

Most of it attributed to achieving humanities's dreams through technology and hard work.

Every time someone speaks of how humanity solved its problems like hunger, or disease, it was because of developing advanced technology.

The idea being that technology accomplished more than religion was able to, resulting in 22, 23rd, 24th century humans largely abandoning religious beliefs.

Devil's Due is an example. The Ventaxians believed that their planet had a thousand years of peace because their ancestors made a deal with a devil-like being called Ardra.

During the trial, Picard kept asking did Ardra do anything specific to bring about the changes, they kept saying no, it was their own policies that did it.

Picard concluded 'it looks like it was your own hard work that accomplished all of this.'

Kirk stated how he believed humans evolved.

Picard suggested that developing a religion would most likely lead to things like superstitions and ignorance.

Keiko refused to teach the religious Bajoran's viewpoint about the wormhole. Jake referred to them as 'some wormhole aliens' and said the whole Bajoran religious thing about them was dumb.

These don't sound like religious people and they represent a wide range of people-a teenager, 3 different captains, and a botanist.

I think the Federation and earth have a strong democratic and libertarian type government that allows people to practice and believe what they want.

They have the freedom to believe and the freedom not to believe as well. Or practice whatever belief they want.

It wouldn't be the Federation without it.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Being tolerant of something doesn't mean you can't criticize it. It just means you can't judge people or treat people badly because of it.

You know the funny thing? People into Star Trek are often stereotyped as being angry intolerant nerdboys. But I post on a Star Trek website and I post on a website for international art films. The Star Trek board is the one that is much more able to discuss sensitive topics respectfully.

 

[2takesfrakes]

What's that website for the International Art Films, by the way? Might be interested ...

 

[JirinPanthosa]

www.mubi.com

 

[2takesfrakes]

Awesome! The small favour's greatly received ...

 

[Sci]

I find it amusing that people are trying to ascribe some set of universal traits held by all religions. It's virtually impossible beyond the most basic: Religion is a social institution that seeks to create communities based upon shared belief systems.

That's it. Religion, at the end of the day, is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for progressive or regressive ends. Yes, religious leaders throughout history have used their religions to justify oppression and violence. So to have governmental leaders used governments -- does this mean that government is inherently bad or regressive? Of course it does not -- because we recognize that governments are tools, and that when patriotism is used to justify oppression or aggression, this reflects a flaw with the leaders and the evils for which the tool is being used, not because these traits are intrinsic to the tool itself. Patriotism was used as a rationalization for the Iraq War; that doesn't mean it is inherently bad, nor that it was the real reason for the war. Religion can be used as a rationalization for aggression or oppression -- but that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad, or that religion is the real reason for those acts.

Prime examples: The Crusades were not about religion, they were about Europe wanting the seize the wealth and power of the Islamic world. The oppression of women and LGBT person is not about religion, it's about propping up capitalist patriarchy. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were not about Protestantism vs. Catholicism, they were about the meaning of what it is to be part of the Irish nation and about Irish self-determination. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not about religion, it's about two different cultures with competing claims to the same narrow slice of land as their national homeland. The conquest, oppression, and genocide of the Native American nations was not about religion, it was about stealing Native land for Europeans and exploiting their wealth and labor. Etc.

The proof is in the pudding: If religion were the origin of oppression and violence, a regime that rejects religion would not be so. Yet the Soviet Union, an atheistic regime, was as murderous as any religious regime in history has been. And yet we are enlightened enough that we don't take this to mean that atheism is inherently murderous and oppressive!

Religion has been used to rationalize oppression and violence whose real causes lied in economic systems and political agendas; this is true. It is also true that religious persons throughout history have been motivated by their religion to act in the interests of justice, peace, and equality, and that religion has provided the emotional sustenance for important social movements. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was, let us recall, driven by religious leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposition to mass-murdering capitalist regimes in South America came from the practitioners of Liberation Theology. Religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu were invaluable in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, the Moral Monday movement, led by the Rev. William Barber, has proven one of the largest and most important social movements to advance social justice and equality against the repressive and racist North Carolina government.

Religion, at the end of the day, is just a tool. It can be used for progress, or it can be used for regression. It is not inherently anything except an attempt by a community to find meaning in their shared beliefs. The question is whether their beliefs promote equality, liberty, and justice, or promote hierarchy, oppression, and violence.

 

[BigJake]

Excellent post by Sci.

 

[T'Girl]

Being tolerant of something doesn't mean you can't criticize it. It just means you can't judge people or treat people badly because of it.

There's a wide difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

No, Picard is referring solely to the Mintakans and their beliefs of a thousand years before, based upon information in Doctor Barron's report, Barron was studying the Mintakans.

Picard refers specifically to the Mintakans three times in the short paragraph you first quoted, these people, their beliefs and send them. Picard never once refers to any other species on any other planet, nor to any other belief other than the Mintakan's. Picard does refer to their beliefs as supernatural and superstition, and that that belief involved ignorance and fear.

That belief only.

Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice?

Female genital mutilation is a cultural ritual in North-central Africa and a few other places in the world. As you are probably aware TheGoodStuff, there is no advocacy or even mention of female genital mutilation in the Quran, or any other religious book. Why you ascribe this practice to religion is a mystery.

What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia?

Through-out Human history the majority of societies have been paternal societies, this predates the Christian church. Responsibility for the practice can hardly be laid at the feet of Christianity.

Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision?

The Catholic Church's basic position on birth control (which would include modern condoms) dates back to the second century AD. The church didn't come up with the policy solely because of AIDS/HIV in Africa.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

The long list of positives far out weighs any legitimate negatives.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It's absolutely true that religion is a force of good in the hands of good people and a force of evil in the hands of evil people. It's also true that most people who use it for evil tend to place selfish motives before religious motives.

But the basic premise of religion is that you place belief before observable fact. To be religious you must trust something that is told to you more than you trust something you can measure and physically prove for yourself.

In the past hundred years the average life expectancy of a human being has increased by more than a decade. Do you attribute this to prayer, or do you attribute it to a greater scientific understanding of the natural world?

I'm a firm believer in moral philosophy and that's one of the major possible benefits of religion, and even consider the words of Jesus as written down in the Bible a great moral philosophy, but given a choice between something that is told to me and something that is shown to me, I will take the thing shown to me every time.

Accept all people for who they are and what they believe, but never stop advocating for the truth as you see it.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I wonder what the fan reaction would be if absolultely no attention was paid to it, whatsoever, other than a camera passing it on the wall, but there would be a crucifix in a crewman's quarters on some ship, or another. Would they get up in arms about it? I can't imagine it would go by unnoticed.

 

[Sci]

It's absolutely true that religion is a force of good in the hands of good people and a force of evil in the hands of evil people. It's also true that most people who use it for evil tend to place selfish motives before religious motives.

But the basic premise of religion is that you place belief before observable fact. To be religious you must trust something that is told to you more than you trust something you can measure and physically prove for yourself.

No. That's the basic premise of what might be called the conservative, literalist, or legalistic religious traditions.

But there are also religious traditions that go with observable fact when it conflicts with religious heritage -- Jewish and Christian traditions, for instance, which accept the theory of evolution and disregard a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

There are also even more liberal religious traditions in which the specific doctrines or belief in the supernatural is not held as being necessarily true in a literal sense, but as an important story that can illustrate how a moral life can be constructed. The Unitarian-Universalist Church, for instance -- or, for that matter, members and leaders of mainstream churches such as those whom Karen Armstrong, in her book A History of God, describe as saying that God does not literally exist yet is the most important metaphorical truth in the word. (Such persons are often "in the closet," however.)

And then of course there are religious traditions that never placed primary emphasis on the idea of the supernatural -- variants of Buddhism and Confucianism, for instance. Arguably Deism.

ETA:

Thank you, BigJake!

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^You can go further: there are religions that clearly warn against literal interpretations, and that require one to either put the plain scientific interpretation before the spiritual or that require one to modify one's belief as new scientific discoveries emerge (see the Dalai Lama, Maimonides, and `Abdu'l-Bahá.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has result in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

I find the bolded part laughable. The italicised spurious at best. Religion does nothing but hold back thought, promote the deepening of division and prejudice. Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision? Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice? What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia? Perhaps those who condemn homosexuals to hell are promoting justice?

The entire history of religion is that of opression, violence, superstition, ignorance and hatred. Pop over to Ireland and witness the attrocities all done in the name of 'god'.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

When I wrote, "Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion," I accepted all those examples implicitly. OTOH, I also argued that religion was more complex than such examples, and it cannot explain all violence/intolerance or be described as a source of only violence/intolerance. Religion has been a source of misinformation, but the first scientific texts were written by Sumerian priests; the Big Bang was theorized by a Jesuit; and the human genome was mapped by someone who has written extensively about religion. Frans de Waal has pointed out both the roots of gender inequality and the mechanism for its resolution among primates, though it's easy to accept that religion can exacerbate such behavior. However, plenty of religions practiced sexual rites--including same sex. Conversely, Plenty of politicians during the French Revolution and during the Stalinist era advocated and codified rigorous controls of women's agency and control of their reproduction (after brief eras of more open policies) without recourse to religion. And unless you are telling me you think hell is a real place, than I am not sure where the specific injustice is.

What your examples tell me is that you think you are outflanking me by bringing up examples specific to Christianity. I am not sure why such examples should upset me at all. Christianity is not the only religion, not now and certainly not since the beginning of time. There are many more non-Christians in the world than there are Christians. Some can't clearly be described as theists. There's the possibility that you aren't willing to take on the full history of religion, perhaps because you are really only interested in embarrassing Christians. You haven't addressed my examples, which I think is telling. In the long run, the fact that the Pope is Christian doesn't change the fact that MLK was as well. I make no argument that religion is good, exclusively or otherwise, nor do I argue that it is evil. It is an institution, one usually subordinate to the power of the state; it is a source for cultural values and beliefs; it can be a source for social justice and superstition. Religion exists; it is complex and varied; it is no one thing for all people. That's about as good of a generalization that can be made.

This is mere religious apologism and nothing more. It requires NO effort whatsoever to condemn religion as being a source of violence, intolerance and ignorance. Religion, in all its guises, results in these things. Religion distorts, it invades everything around it and it naturally segregates humanity.

I have studied numerous religions, however Christianity is more convenient due to our western viewpoint. Religion is not a source of cultural values, it is a perversion of thought and an exploitative device of both the mind and of society. Religion is based in superstition, it is dependent on ignorance and fear.

But there Picard is specifically referring to the Minitakans, their history, their former beliefs, and not to religion in general.

Picard: "Doctor Barron, your report describes ... these people ..."

As a student of history, Picard would realize that religion has result in many Human advancements, cultural improvements and the expansion of civilization.

Picard is directly equating religion with 'superstition, ignorance and fear' there is nothing unique to the Minitakans in that statement. Their religious history is identical to all others as those are the three things that religion fosters.

Actually, I gave you a specific example: Wiccans. Perhaps I should add others: why do Baha'i deserved to be shoehorned into culture wars by you? Not all religions are hegemonic, not all are intolerant of other beliefs or non-belief, not all are doctrinal, not all are universalizing. Religions have been used as a force by states to rally the people to wars and massacres. Religious people have justified the atrocities they committed on the basis of the tenants of their religion. OTOH, you need to do a lot of work to make religion a unique source of violence and intolerance. Even something as religiously volatile as the Crusades were still fundamentally fought by states. Conversely, it's nearly impossible to disaggregate religion from the histories of culture. Moreover, whenever I see movements for justice, I see religious people of many stripes, undoubtedly alongside non-believers, whether on the Mall in Washington in the 1960s or on Moral Mondays today.

I find the bolded part laughable. The italicised spurious at best. Religion does nothing but hold back thought, promote the deepening of division and prejudice. Was the Pope condemning the use of condoms in Africa a wise decision? Is the needless genital mutilation of children a symbol of justice? What about how Christianity has subjegated women for millenia? Perhaps those who condemn homosexuals to hell are promoting justice?

The entire history of religion is that of opression, violence, superstition, ignorance and hatred. Pop over to Ireland and witness the attrocities all done in the name of 'god'.

One has to ignore an EXTENSIVE list of crimes against humanity to portray religion as neutral never mind positive.

I could say the same thing about science. We would never have to establish rules for experiments otherwise. We've carried out atrocities on "less respected" human life like those with a mental disorder. We've damaged countless brains and caused death. And we learned from those experiments. The Nazis are an extreme example where experiments were carried out on homosexuals and Jews, less important life.

Some of that was done out of ignorance. Some out of malice. But science isn't bloodless, either. My point to all of this is that I have yet to meet a Christian who has blamed me for hurricanes. Maybe I need to get out more, but I haven't seen it. Idiots on television? All the time.

And while we are on the subject, how about you join me in asking American Atheists to branch out into community service and STOP appearing on Fox News shaming the faithful? Your belief is your belief and theirs is theirs. Do people take it too far? Sure and we shouldn't stand for that. That doesn't mean it has no redeeming qualities and its sole purpose is to maim and destroy.

Its sole result is destruction, ignorance, fear and hatred. At its heart, these are the things religion truly causes. Science, in any positive or negative aspect, is conducted in reality for present concerns. It is now bound by superstition or 'faith'.

I find it amusing that people are trying to ascribe some set of universal traits held by all religions. It's virtually impossible beyond the most basic: Religion is a social institution that seeks to create communities based upon shared belief systems.

That's it. Religion, at the end of the day, is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for progressive or regressive ends. Yes, religious leaders throughout history have used their religions to justify oppression and violence. So to have governmental leaders used governments -- does this mean that government is inherently bad or regressive? Of course it does not -- because we recognize that governments are tools, and that when patriotism is used to justify oppression or aggression, this reflects a flaw with the leaders and the evils for which the tool is being used, not because these traits are intrinsic to the tool itself. Patriotism was used as a rationalization for the Iraq War; that doesn't mean it is inherently bad, nor that it was the real reason for the war. Religion can be used as a rationalization for aggression or oppression -- but that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad, or that religion is the real reason for those acts.

Prime examples: The Crusades were not about religion, they were about Europe wanting the seize the wealth and power of the Islamic world. The oppression of women and LGBT person is not about religion, it's about propping up capitalist patriarchy. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were not about Protestantism vs. Catholicism, they were about the meaning of what it is to be part of the Irish nation and about Irish self-determination. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not about religion, it's about two different cultures with competing claims to the same narrow slice of land as their national homeland. The conquest, oppression, and genocide of the Native American nations was not about religion, it was about stealing Native land for Europeans and exploiting their wealth and labor. Etc.

The proof is in the pudding: If religion were the origin of oppression and violence, a regime that rejects religion would not be so. Yet the Soviet Union, an atheistic regime, was as murderous as any religious regime in history has been. And yet we are enlightened enough that we don't take this to mean that atheism is inherently murderous and oppressive!

Religion has been used to rationalize oppression and violence whose real causes lied in economic systems and political agendas; this is true. It is also true that religious persons throughout history have been motivated by their religion to act in the interests of justice, peace, and equality, and that religion has provided the emotional sustenance for important social movements. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was, let us recall, driven by religious leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposition to mass-murdering capitalist regimes in South America came from the practitioners of Liberation Theology. Religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu were invaluable in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, the Moral Monday movement, led by the Rev. William Barber, has proven one of the largest and most important social movements to advance social justice and equality against the repressive and racist North Carolina government.

Religion, at the end of the day, is just a tool. It can be used for progress, or it can be used for regression. It is not inherently anything except an attempt by a community to find meaning in their shared beliefs. The question is whether their beliefs promote equality, liberty, and justice, or promote hierarchy, oppression, and violence.

Again, mere religious apologism. You are very focused on the larger attrocities [crusades etc] but religion pervades every day life. For example, slavery was justified in Christian terms, with the bible placing emphasis on another life and 'obeying a master', and Emancipation for example, lay in economic not moral grounds. It still does not change the fact that many used religion to justify slavery.

The crusades may have been politcal, however religion was their face and a very effective means of spurring them on.

Young boys have their genitals mutilated in the name of religion. Vast swathes of wealth are poured into religion etc etc. I really cant be bothered listing what it does. These beliefs have a cascade effect on the world. They are based in ignorance, they are ficticious and they bring absolutely no benefit to humanity.

It's absolutely true that religion is a force of good in the hands of good people and a force of evil in the hands of evil people. It's also true that most people who use it for evil tend to place selfish motives before religious motives.

But the basic premise of religion is that you place belief before observable fact. To be religious you must trust something that is told to you more than you trust something you can measure and physically prove for yourself.

In the past hundred years the average life expectancy of a human being has increased by more than a decade. Do you attribute this to prayer, or do you attribute it to a greater scientific understanding of the natural world?

I'm a firm believer in moral philosophy and that's one of the major possible benefits of religion, and even consider the words of Jesus as written down in the Bible a great moral philosophy

Have you actually read the bible? It is a disgustingly amoral book. One of the most misguided claims theists make is how morality is somehow derived from religion: which is entirely wrong, illogical and absurd. Religion orders, it condemns, it threatens and it dominates. There is nothing good about it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOUR VERY CALM, POLITE, AND OPEN-MINDED POINT IN SUCH A SUBTLE MANNER. ONCE I CONQUER MY TEXT VOICE IMMODULATION PROBLEM, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO READ YOUR NEWSLETTER AND/OR MANIFESTO.