Religion How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?

[strongvoicesforward]

The Bhudda never claimed to have any insight or messages from God. He meditated and starved himself, etc., in the search for answers. It's interesting, because he "earned" the answers to the questions he found. He was not handed the answers on from on high. Or so tradition holds, anyway.
You can argue that he had no "proof" of his claims, but he basically said, "What is is, whether you believe it or not. What happens to you is a product of your own actions." And that is a HUGE paraphrase, so I aplogize to anyone who finds that too simplistic.

Actually, I have always found Bhuddism to be fascinating. Does it really allow us to achieve "enlightenment?" -- whatever that means -- I cannot say. Interesting, though.

Why don`t you start a thread on Bhuddism and put forth some of the main things that interest you about it or the reasons why you are attracted to it? I would be interested in seeing more on your thoughts on it. And, I am sure many will post with their own interests in Bhuddism in it. Just a suggestion.

*Just a note: I found it heinous that the Taliban, adherants to Islam, took it upon themselves to destroy the religious/artistic impressions of Bhuddism in their country by blasting with dynamite and artillery shells the giant Bhuddas in their countries.

Now, that is "intolerant!" But, they would argue their religion demanded such action be taken.

Archeologically and artistically (in the heritage sense) speaking, we are poorer now for those statues no longer here with us.

Yes, religion -- that thing easily hijacked by any group to support its own vision of the world they want to control, can be used by anyone to justify anything. And, the sad thing is, others will keep shouting, "show tolerance" to them. Does showing tolerance include letting beliefs be carried out when those beliefs intrude on others??? The Taliban sure did think so. Aren`t we supposed to be tolerant to their actions which were grounded in their interpretations of thier scriptures and religion?

 

[Ma Cherie]

I visit your threads because I find them interesting, SVF. Even though I don't agree with some of the things you say, I'll see what you have to say, because I am someone who's is willing to look at another person's point of view. You said that people enjoy reading your thread because of the way you discuss them? You're not bragging, are you? :blush:

But in all seriousness, there have some incidents where people were being attacked for their religious beliefs, this is what I've noticed.

 

[Mars Man]

What would really help if some of the emotional feelings with relgion would disappear, I know it's hard, but I think it would help. If we can just discuss religion without getting emotional about it, then we can have a civil discussion without turning into a heated debate.
:bluush:

This, since I wasn't really specific in that last post, is right on the mark.

And, I very often follow Ma chan's posts if I see them there on the screen. More power to you baby !! (of course this is not with the intention to derail the topic of the OP)

 

[Reiku]

I visit your threads because I find them interesting, SVF. Even though I don't agree with some of the things you say, I'll see what you have to say, because I am someone who's is willing to look at another person's point of view. You said that people enjoy reading your thread because of the way you discuss them? You're not bragging, are you? :blush:
But in all seriousness, there have some incidents where people were being attacked for their religious beliefs, this is what I've noticed.

Very true, we really don't need 20,000 topics all saying "Religion is bad/wrong/stupid" in one way or another--it's really just a means of harassing people who don't share you're beliefs:

Even if they choose not to read your posts, they still have to see all the offensive titles to your threads.

A close freind of mine was a journalist--back when jornalists still had integrity--and we've often discussd the various points of "objective reporting" versus "opinionated editorials", and the various ways you can spot prejudice or personal bias in someone's statements. As an example:

If this thread had been labeled:
"How can Religions Cause Harm?"

or even:
"How do some Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?"

I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but as it stands:
"How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?"

Is a statement that is automaticly biased against religion: it makes the assumption the all Religions impose their beliefs on others and cause harm.

While that may be someone's opinion, so is the opinion that all blacks are amoral gangbangers. The title "How do Blacks Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?" wouldn't be acceptable here, would it?

So why is religion ok to target like this?

That's a very interesting test I learned from my freind:

Take any statement about a group of people and replace the name of the group with "Blacks", then with "Whites"--and if it sounds like a racist statement, it is probably biased.

 

[Revenant]

SVF, I think that your lack of sensitivity to Christians is the reason people hint at closing your threads, and not at all due to them trying to keep someone from saying critical things about Christianity. There were prior to your arrival people who posted very critical things about Christianity in a non-offensive way.

This environment isn't very conducive to bringing Christians into discussion, and were I Christian, I might steer clear of a forum where someone was going to insensitively attack my beliefs. A look at the topic titles might do that easily.

 

[Reiku]

You might want to be more clear about whom you're adressing, Revenant...

 

[Revenant]

Edited last post to clarify.

 

[kirei_na_me]

I have said this before, and I know I'm going to sound diplomatic, like I usually do, but...

I do take the "live and let live" approach. As long as people do not try to force their beliefs on me, and treat me with respect, I don't care what they believe. If it makes them feel better about themselves and they show me tolerance for others, I have no problem with them whatsoever.

I am an atheist, and I would never consider being anything else. There is nothing that anyone can tell me that can make me believe otherwise. I also know that there is probably nothing that I could say that would change the mind of someone who is religious and whose religion means a lot to them. I would rather people stop letting themselves be brainwashed, but they don't see it as being brainwashed. They probably see me the same way.

I try to make peace with everyone. I try to accept everyone for who they are, as long as they're not causing me, or anyone important to me, harm.

You can't call yourself tolerant if you are not. Period. Being intolerant toward a Christian is the same as a Christian being intolerant of the atheist. What's the difference? A good Christian should know that it's not their place to judge, and to me, an atheist should despise judgment so much(because of the religious reference), that they would never consider judging someone.

A good example is my stepmom. I love her. After having a stepmom before her that I despised and who was very cruel to me(and who claimed to be a die-hard Christian, btw), my new one is a dream. She's genuine, down-to-earth, sweet. She is good to my children, she is good to me. She accepts me for who I am and she accepts my father for who he really is.

Do you know what her religion is, though? She's a Jehovah's Witness. Yes, she's from that religious sect that is one of the most ridiculed. She's one of those bothersome Jehovah's Witnesses. She's one of those who has knocked at your door. She's one who goes to the Kingdom Hall every week. She's one that goes to seminars once a month. But you know what? She has never, ever tried to push her religion on me. She has never initiated a conversation with me about it. She has never even mentioned the fact that she is a Jehovah's Witness without me saying something to her first or hearing about it from my dad.

I think my stepmom made me a lot more tolerant than I was before, and I was pretty tolerant before. I grew up around all different kinds of religions, where I got to see all kinds of different views. My mom grew up Methodist, but is an atheist now, my stepdad an atheist, my dad grew up Episcopalian but is now agnostic, one grandmother is a hardcore Baptist, my stepmom is a Jehovah's Witness, etc. etc.

I feel thankful that I was able to be around all these religions (and non religions) and that I was allowed to choose for myself. It took many years of observation, learning from books and people around me, and just a gut feeling, to get to where I am now. I think where I ended up was pretty well informed.

Anyway, I've drifted. I just wanted to say that I'm pretty much in favor of the "live and let live", as long as no one is getting hurt. As long as people don't try to impose on others and that "wall of separation" is in effect, I'm good...pretty much.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I visit your threads because I find them interesting, SVF. ...

Thank you, Ma Cherie.

You said that people enjoy reading your thread because of the way you discuss them? You're not bragging, are you?

lol. It was just meant as an observation -- though I do see how it could be taken as "bragging."

But in all seriousness, there have some incidents where people were being attacked for their religious beliefs, this is what I've noticed.

The operative word here is "attcked," and I disagree with that. In fact, that has been hashed over more than several times and in every case my threads have survived judgement on that accusation. Why, because I just don`t just launch into a tirade against religions using fowl auful language -- I make a statement and follow up with support for the reasons why I believe such based on reason. Just because people get offended or don`t agree with my reasons does not turn it into an attack.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Very true, we really don't need 20,000 topics all saying "Religion is bad/wrong/stupid" in one way or another

No, we don`t. And I have not counted 20,000 thread topics. However, there are many subjects to be tackeled with religion as it regards truth, not truth and various impacts on society, present, past, and future. Different threads with different themes are quite fine, and in fact, having threads specifically titled for different themes is the best way for clarity.

--it's really just a means of harassing people who don't share you're beliefs:

It is not. Declaring it such, does not make it such.

Even if they choose not to read your posts, they still have to see all the offensive titles to your threads.

If the titles offend them, then they are too sensitive. This thread titled, "How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and cause Harm" to be fair, is no more offensive than what a thread titled "How do religions promote themselves and benefit the world" help people," would be. If "tolerance" is the buzzword that makes religionists all fuzzy on the inside, then they should be tolerant of critics who feel it is important to expose those who they feel are frauds. The reason they are not tolerant of such people is only because they are the ones under the spotlight. Of course in that case they are going to scream "attack" and "intolerance" in that situation, but by doing so they have become intolerant.

If this thread had been titled:
"How can Religions Cause Harm?"
or even:
"How do some Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?"
I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but as it stands:
"How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?"
Is a statement that is automaticly biased against religion: it makes the assumption the all Religions impose their beliefs on others and cause harm.

I disagree. The use of "can" and "some", while a little softer and agreeable to those with a tip toe style and always concious of semantics, does not mean that all must dilly daddle around what they believe to be so. If I think "all" or for the most part "all" religions cause harm, I am under no obligation to water down my opinion with "some," in effect admitting that "some" do not "impose" and cause "harm."

Furthermore, just because the qualifier "some" is not inserted into the title, does not mean it is "all inclusive." I can say "Fathers like to take their children to the ball park to watch baseball games and eat hot dogs," without it meaning "ALL" fathers like to do that. Reiku, you are playing with semantics.

While that may be someone's opinion, so is the opinion that all blacks are amoral gangbangers. The title "How do Blacks Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?" wouldn't be acceptable here, would it?

It is not acceptable because it is a racist statement which is easily proven false. Can you list a majority of religions that have never imposed their beliefs or not caused harm? I can find many black people who never have been "amoral gangbangers."

So why is religion ok to target like this?

"Targeted" is an inflaming word used pajoratively and I would change that to just "chosen." Religions are chosen for discussing their impositions and harms because throughout history they have "imposed" and "harmed."

That's a very interesting test I learned from my freind:
Take any statement about a group of people and replace the name of the group with "Blacks", then with "Whites"--and if it sounds like a racist statement, it is probably biased.

Sadly for you, it is a wrong test to live by when it comes for points of discussion. As simple as we would like the world and discourse to be, it just insn`t so.

 

[Mycernius]

I had yet another run-in with Scientologists on Monday (I must attract these sort). After pointing out that their stress test machine actually measures electrical resistance in the body and reactions, a bit like a lie detector, and mentioning that Dianectics is a psuedo-science, the young lady I was talking to became very stressed. She informed me that the machine measures the mind, thank-you very much, and that to criticise Scientology you must have been a scientologist at some point, then asked me to leave. Talk about a circular argument and being close minded. Quiet made my day. First time I have ever been asked to leave a religious establishment after being asked to go there.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

In the 1880?fs western plains Indians in the U.S. were deceived by superstition from a mixture of native american religious beliefs -- mainly being that the plains belonged to the Indians and that only if they performed the Ghost Dance, their numbers would grow and repopulate the west and drive out the White Man.

Many were duped by this Ghost Dance religion/ceremony and donned special shirts which were said to protect them magically --- eeeerrrr --- miraculously from bullets. Well, they were wrong, and when the uprising occurred many were shot and died for this belief handed to them by their religion.

I guess they were deceived by false prophets -- or victims from a time when reason had not yet penetrated far enough into their cultures. Already poor and destitue, living on reservations, I wonder how many women and children were left widowed and fatherless to fend for themselves.

Wounded Knee was a massacre and religion gave these already defeated people the delusion that they had the strength to face bullets with special shirts.

------------------------------------------
* You see, it is not all about Christianity. There is a lot of responsibility to spread around for all superstitions.

 

[Sensuikan San]

In the 1880?fs western plains Indians in the U.S. were deceived by superstition from a mixture of native american religious beliefs -- mainly being that the plains belonged to the Indians and that only if they performed the Ghost Dance, their numbers would grow and repopulate the west and drive out the White Man.
Many were duped by this Ghost Dance religion/ceremony and donned special shirts which were said to protect them magically --- eeeerrrr --- miraculously from bullets. Well, they were wrong, and when the uprising occurred many were shot and died for this belief handed to them by their religion.
I guess they were deceived by false prophets -- or victims from a time when reason had not yet penetrated far enough into their cultures. Already poor and destitue, living on reservations, I wonder how many women and children were left widowed and fatherless to fend for themselves.
Wounded Knee was a massacre and religion gave these already defeated people the delusion that they had the strength to face bullets with special shirts.

------------------------------------------
A most interesting post.

Essentially, I agree ?c but, bear with me and let me just paraphrase, if I may, SVF ?c

?gIn the 1870?fs, white Americans (and newly arrived immigrants) in the U.S, were deceived by George Sheridan, George Custer and others into the belief that the western plains of the United States truly belonged to them (?c.. by right of might, one can only assume). They believed that (quite rightly as it turned out ?c)their numbers would eventually grow ?c. And drive out the Red Man.

But ?c in the interim, they were mainly deceived by the belief in the ?greligion?h of having a superior access to technology and that by, undoubtedly, having a superior organizational ability, all barriers in their way would be surmounted with ?c.. eeeerrrr ?cease. Well they were wrong ?c. And when the first major confrontation occurred many were shot and died for this belief handed to them by their ?greligion(s)?h.

One can but presume that they were deceived by false prophets ?c or victims of a time when Anglo-Saxon technology overruled all ?c. and could not fail. Many of those newly arrived immigrants, poor and trying to establish themselves in a ?gNew?h land ..... I wonder how many women and children were left widowed and fatherless to fend for themselves?

Little Bighorn was a massacre ?c brought about by the instigators ?c and a religion gave these people the delusion that ?c they knew better ?c..?

You see, it is not all about Christianity. There is a lot of responsibility to spread around for all superstitions.

Absolutely so.

But ?c and this is my point ?c. What is a superstition ?c.?

?W????

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Absolutely so.
But ?c and this is my point ?c. What is a superstition ?c.?

I think it is pretty self-explanatory. Organized religions want to believe that they are out from under the shadow of the word, but they are not. Their use of the word "religion" or the various sects of their religions is merely a colorful dress on the same old hag.

Here it is defined by M.Webster, though:

Superstition
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Children take note: Cheating on Bible tests can be hazardous to your health. God works through he that administers the test.
Austin, July 2002

I thought Christians were under the law of the New Testement. You know, the more loving, caring, and forgiving part of a two part volume. Someone had better tell Pastor Joshua Thompson in Austin, Texas at his Baptist church.

Pastor Tom caught an 11 yr old boy in his congregation cheating on a Bible test and then with the help of another church member, the pastor`s brother, they went medieval on him, beating him senseless with a stick to the point where he was taken to the hospital where it was found he had experienced liver failure.

Isn`t there a phrase that goes ?gspare the rod, spoil the child?h? -- Got to love that good ol?f Bible/christian reasoning on child psychology/discipline and love taught by church leaders. Religious fervor does that at times.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What is a man to do to get a woman that will stay loyal to him?

How about mutilating her genitals?

Female Genital Mutilation has been a custom in large parts of sub-saharan Africa, parts of the middle east, and asia -- . While not specifically mandated by Islam, it does seem to offer advice on doing it and does not condemn it for the barbarity that it is.

Those following the Haddith who support the mutilation of the clitoris may cite this verse:

'Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her:

Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband'." 1,8​

Often this procedure is done by rural or urban ladies (a twisted version of a midwife or even a shamen like lady figure) who may have a rusted razor blade as their tool of trade. The procedure is painful as the clitoris is sliced and scraped away -- requiring the 9?`12 yr old girl to be held down. Often infection or fever is the result along with life long pain upon urinating, or sexual intercourse -- not to mention the severe scaring. Death even occurs when the victim of this superstition/custom does not recover.

Pity the girls born to the region where this is practiced in! It is an outrage!!

But hey, aren`t we to be tolerant and respectful of the religionists or their apologists who shout, ?glive and let live?h? I don`t think these young ladies have a choice in being tolerant. And I doubt their parents are tolerant if the girls, who should be laughing and playing with friends and dolls, voice a fear and desire to not have the procedure performed. They must not be permitted to be children doing their childish things when they could be getting prepared for their future husbands. No. They must submit to mutilation!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Here are some of the Fatwa`s (Islamic decrees) that have been handed down over the years on the issue of Female Genital Mutilation by the Egyptian Fatwa Committee:

1951, 23 June: ... female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). ... medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.​

and not so long ago:

1981, 29 Jan: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.​

Still convinced by the old religionist fall back proffered ad nausium, ?glive and let live?h?

If religions would stop sticking their noses in the private lives of what two people want to do and wish to have sexual intercourse before marriage, then they may stop causing terrible physical and mental harm to girls who are forced to submit to this barbaric custom. However, they (Muslims) are obsessed by the virginity of women. IF they didn`t have this obsession stoked by their fraudulant book then there would be no compulsion to try and eliminate the pleasurable feelings that come from a lady`s clitoris by mutilating it.

Chastity! Chastity! Got to have that good ol?f chastity. So what if only one in a hundred, one in a thousand, or one in ten thousand dies from having their clitoris scraped off? Chastity makes the God of Islam happy and his religion`s leaders are all too happy to promote it -- not to mention that even Allah, rather than condeming the practice, just advises ?gnot to cut too deeply.?h

Well, thank you Allah for some common sense! Now, how about performing a miracle and inspire every Islamic leader capable of issuing a Fatwa to do so with the intention of condeming the act en toto? Allahu Akbar! God is great, but somehow, I think the pain of having a clitoris scraped off may be much greater.

Isn`t the hijacked mind of religious fervor driven by a book a sight to behold? It is as mutilated as the scar tissue of a helpless girl victim. Yes, religions impose and cause harm. Many Islamic girls could testify to that if fear didn`t keep them from doing so. Only the ones that can escape are able to tell you about it, though. Freedom of speech is not tolerated there.

Don`t decieve yourself about religion. "Deception" is their tool. To bow down and prey to the god of deception keeps bringing on the pain.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The only biological function of the clitoris is for pleasure. If it is true that God is great (i.e. Allahu Akbar --[snicker snicker]), then why did he create something that some of his leaders who issue Fatwas in his name, see it as bad, a thing leading to temptation and unchastness, and therefore seek to scrape, slice, and mutilate it (i.e. the clitoris) away? Where was his foresight for the torture to come from bendable words. Perhaps he could have saved a lot of harm had he stayed mum on the issue of chastness and kept his trap shut.

Was He so great to create something that he saw the value in having his Word penned in a way which would lead to gross misreadings of verses, and hence women pay the price? Or was the pleasure in the clitoris created just to make us suspicious of our women and test our own resolve for not cheating or staying chaste ourselves?

Seems like women get the bum deal in all this to me. Why should all the responsibility be put on their shoulders? --- errr--- or between their legs? Why not some mutilating of the tip of the penis in such a way that all nerves are completely slice off the head and make us seriously work hard to get our erections for propagating? I think a good inch of shaving from the tip would do the trick. I wonder if Allah would think that was so great, or if his followers would scream Allahu Akbar (God is Great) while their willies are being hacked and mutilated.

What is it with religions and their Gods not being up to the task of being able to be clear? Haven`t they ever taken a university course on rhetoric, discourse, effective writing, comprehension, etc... ? My university professors were pretty strict on writing form, and were all very clear with their meanings. Perhaps they should apply for the position of Allah.

Since we are mortal and imperfect, prone to mistakes, and God is perfect, I think the burden of the message being clear and timeless and passed clearly without corruption is in the Big Man`s court. Ambiguous verses to the malliable mind is a weapon we should all hope not to be at the receiving end of.

-----------------------------------
*If you are joining this thread at this post, please go up two or three posts to read where I have begun my writings on Female Genital Mutilation to get my whole perspective on it and its harm caused by religion.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What is it with religionists and airplanes? I am wondering if there is not some kind of fatal attraction relationship, or if the high altitude lets them speak to and hear God more than they would if there feet were planted on the ground.

I mean, when religionists look at an airplane, are they thinking ?gtransportation,?h or ?gan instrument of the Lord or Allah or some other invisible being??h -- we all know those who hijacked the planes into the World Trade Center buildings were deluded with thoughts of promised virgins in an after life. But, don`t think some Muslims are the only ones that act funny on planes.

Could be that we may need a licensing system to be set up to accertain if religionists are capable of rational thought on planes -- or to just keep from annoying people who just want to read a magazine, listen to music or sleep. Perhaps a security check at check in, asking them if they have any Bibles or religious scriptures wit them and to please check them with the check in luggage, all the time watching their pupils to see if they dialate with passion at the mentioning of God, Allah, the Koran, or the Bible.

Enroute to Texas over the Pacific Ocean in 2003, fellow Christian, 36 yr old Brian Kane Eager, was suddenly taken over by the spirit of the Lord after annoyingly reading his Bible aloud. Jumping up into the aisle he began shouting that he had to tell the ?eGood News?f and that he just couldn`t keep such ?eGood News?f to himself when he had it. When his shouting caused a baby to cry he decided to push his way to the baby to ?ehelp?f it. That`s when passengers grabbed him and duct taped him to his seat to wait for the FBI to meat them to take him upon landing.

I mean, this is like 2 years after 911 and this guy has no common sense. Religious fervor does that to some people and is something to fear , IMHO.

 

[Mitsuo]

What really bugs me is that some organized religions and some of humankind seem to need to focus on fear, demons, and devils, instead of love, peace, and goodwill.