Religion How do Religions Impose their Beliefs and Cause Harm?

[Mycernius]

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.

Fear is an easier way to control people or frighten them into what you want them to do. Imagine Stalins USSR or Maos China without fear. I don't think they would have got as far as they did without it

 

[Mitsuo]

I agree. Fear is the main factor for controlling people.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Cause of death: Belief in religions/?fholy?f books that are ready made to order for anyone wanting to hijack them to make them mean to say whatever they want for their own nefarious motives.

In November 1978, paranoia and belief in a Christian after-life caused Jim Jones to lead all 900 members of his Christian jungle community in Guyana, South America to commit suicide by drinking poison laced kool-aid.

Jim Jones, an ordained Christian minister, was not just leading the poor down trodden without any education. He had nurses and doctors amongst his flock -- and in fact, they were the ones to help administer the ?ego to mythical heaven?f drink.

A simple remedy could have avoided such a tragedy: skepticism and a devotion to reason. Tragic often comes when one gives over one`s mind to rationalizations.

If you want to see the results of this religious folly, just go to google.com, choose ?gimages?h and type in ?gJonestown.?h You will see startling photos that made Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, etc... Especially educating for those of you who are younger who may not remember or may have never even heard of it. I think those images are too upsetting to post here -- even as a link. But for the curious, go look.

Many of the images seems to show Christian folk dead in prayer circles.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Religions cause harm when they opress people and pervert their free will. We are all pretty familiar with the recent news of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who had converted from Islam to Christianity, and the threat to his life under Islamic law because he rejected Islam. That is as clear an example you can have (in this case Islam) that religions are repressive and seek to rob us of our freedoms.

Some seek to call someone who criticises religions for their wrongs and fraudulant claims ?gintolerant?h or ?gbigot,?h but intolerance has a very strong place in religion. Look at the Christianity of the past and now look at Islam today in places.

The Washington Post had an article today in it that the reporter in discussing Mr. Rahman?fs case stated:

Since then [Mr. Rahman?fs transport to Italy for his protection], though, the incident has resonated bitterly among Afghan Muslims and put President Hamid Karzai on the defensive, highlighting the difficulties of trying to establish a modern democracy in a Muslim society where deeply held religious values stress submission and conformity over individual rights.

?gYou must understand how shameful it is for us that a Muslim would become a Christian,?h said Rauff, ... ?gIf other people want to join Islam, we encourage and appreciate them. But ours is the complete and final religion. If you leave it, that is like throwing God away.?h​

and...

?gBut if you leave Islam, our law says you must be killed. If Abdul Rahman stood before me right now, I would kill him myself.?h -- excerpts from Afghans' Discord on Convert Reflects View of Democracy, Washington Post, 23 April, Pamela Constable​

Wwhooooo, and I get called ?gintolerant?h and a ?gbigot?h just because I say religions based on the holy books we have now are fraudulant, inconsistant, contradict and are outright lies and deception. Here, though, we can see which is truely intolerant, and that should be noted and put forth strongly.

In the first para of the blocked quote above by the Post reporter, I am glad she clearly sees how Islam is at odds with democracy and is oppressing individual rights. However, Islam is merely doing the things Christianity had done a few centuries earlier.

The virus of religious fervor spreads and the pendulum swings back and forth. It is obvious for those who do not wear blinders.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Religions cause harm when they opress people and pervert their free will.

Agreed absolutely. Couldn?ft agree more. I would go further and say, in agreement with you, that they frequently have, frequently do ?c and, unfortunately, unless checked, frequently will ?c.
But, your statement is qualified is it not? ( ?c.. when ?c.. ?)

We are all pretty familiar with the recent news of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who had converted from Islam to Christianity, and the threat to his life under Islamic law because he rejected Islam. That is as clear an example you can have (in this case Islam) that religions are repressive and seek to rob us of our freedoms.

I agree with your disgust; I feel the same way; but truly, it isn?ft. However, it is most certainly a clear example which gives support to your first statement: that ?gReligion can be repressive and pervert our free will?h. It is a strong and alarming example, at that!

Some seek to call someone who criticises religions for their wrongs and fraudulant claims ?gintolerant?h or ?gbigot,?h?c?c

Yes, they would. I wouldn?ft ?c. but I don?ft have a vested interest. I would assume that those who made those claims would be deeply religious people ?c. I would bet on it.

Folks who are also criticised for many other reasons, be they political, social, cultural – even fashion sense or dietary habits, also feel victimised and cry ?gunfair?h from time to time ?c. I fear that that is something we all have to live with ?c all the time ?c. every day. I can understand that, and accept it for what it?fs worth: very little over which to lose sleep!

My concern, and it is a grave concern, is that almost anything can become a ?gReligion?h!

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Humanism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Revisionism, Anti-Revisionism, Vegetarianism, Anti-Smokingism, Anti-Marijuanaism, Anti-Perfumism, Anti-Alcoholism, Anti-Trafficism, ?c..Anybloodyism ?c?c.. and more ?c have their converts, their zealots, their priests, their Church and congregation ?c.. and their day.

And I don?ft mind.

I don?ft care!

As long as they don?ft remain unchecked. As long as they are not allowed to take control over us all. As long as they don?ft dictate to us all ?c the way we live!

I don?ft give a damn what religion or belief a person holds. I just don?ft want them to shove it down my throat or anybody else?fs throat.

But I do give a damn when a nation state bases it?fs laws on religion, thereby shoving the beliefs of its leaders upon the populace. Here I would argue most strongly with nearly every Middle-Eastern country, an awful lot of South America, perhaps Italy, probably Spain, and, certainly, the country of my ancestors, Ireland. So, sue me!

There is nothing ?gwrong?h with ?greligion?h per se. It is unnecessary, irrelevant, pointless and representative of primitive thinking – in my view. But that is only my view.

It is, to a great many people, a great comfort, a great solace, and a great guide to the way they see their lives and put them into context. Good luck to them, I say.

I just ask of them - ?gDon?ft shove it at me!?h

There is nothing ?gwrong?h with the concept of religion. We all have one – however we feel and whatever we believe in!

Just watch the guys running it ?c. And promoting it, whatever it is?c that?fs all!
They?fre all human! ?c. With human weaknesses and desires ?c?c

?W????

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi John,

Good reply above. I see we agree on main points and only off on degree.

But, your statement [Religions cause harm when they opress people and pervert their free will. -- SVF] is qualified is it not? ( ?c.. when ?c.. ?)

Yes, it is qualified. When religions do not oppress or pervert free will and act rather benign then I could consider that they do not cause harm. However, just by using coercion with the threat of eternal damnation by instilling it into children through their indoctrination is perverting free will.

We tend to think of oppression and perverting free will at the national level through edicts by dictatorial powers, but it can be much more subtle than that.

Folks who are also criticised for many other reasons, be they political, social, cultural ?| even fashion sense or dietary habits, also feel victimised and cry ?gunfair?h from time to time ?c. I fear that that is something we all have to live with ?c all the time ?c. every day. I can understand that, and accept it for what it?fs worth: very little over which to lose sleep!

Agreed for the most part. Sure, everyone can be criticized for their own choices, and those who are in the minority are usually at greater risk for more vociferous criticism, but even that is fine. Criticism is acceptable so long as that criticism is not trying to take away the "right" to be different and that that "right" does not cause suffering to others. But, when one org says they will kill you because you are throwing away the real God, then that is definitely something to lose sleep over. It is an assault on the "right" to choose something when that choice you have made does not infringe on the right of another or cause suffering to them.

My concern, and it is a grave concern, is that almost anything can become a ?gReligion?h!
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Humanism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Revisionism, Anti-Revisionism, Vegetarianism, Anti-Smokingism, Anti-Marijuanaism, Anti-Perfumism, Anti-Alcoholism, Anti-Trafficism, ?c..Anybloodyism ?c?c.. and more ?c have their converts, their zealots, their priests, their Church and congregation ?c.. and their day.
And I don?ft mind.
I don?ft care!

I don`t think anything can become a religion. I think you have used the word too wide in this sense. However, I do believe anything can lend itself to fanaticism.

I do mind and do care when fanaticism, or the root cause that fuels it, causes pain and suffering. I think it is a duty to fight it, preferrably with words and ideas to convince others that whatever it is based on is not valid. If fanaticism is so bad that it morphs into emperror worship or a regime such as Nazism, both of which we have seen in the last century, then actions stronger than words are needed to halt or put an end to them.

As long as they don?ft remain unchecked. As long as they are not allowed to take control over us all. As long as they don?ft dictate to us all ?c the way we live!

But John, what if the underlying nature of the doctrine is one that instructs in a way that lends itself to various interpretations to fit anyone`s motives and therefore pain and suffering is the certain by-product? IN that case, do you think it is wise to adopt a passive strategy of only reacting to a threat once it materializes? -- rather than being pro-active and exposing its invalidity while it is still under control? As for me, I prefer the latter.

I don?ft give a damn what religion or belief a person holds. I just don?ft want them to shove it down my throat or anybody else?fs throat.

There are many ways to shove it down a person`s throat without them even noticing. Religion creep is something many just don`t notice. It can take the form of using tax dollars for religious programs or politicians being certain to hire only those with the same faith as them for their staff, advisers etc, and for churches to support candidates and push their agenda through donations to those.

I think that the best way to keep them in check is to examine the premise they are based on. If it is not valid, then point that out. The premise they base their beliefs on is usually their holy scriptures.

But I do give a damn when a nation state bases it?fs laws on religion, thereby shoving the beliefs of its leaders upon the populace. Here I would argue most strongly with nearly every Middle-Eastern country, an awful lot of South America, perhaps Italy, probably Spain, and, certainly, the country of my ancestors, Ireland. So, sue me!

And you are totally right. But, I wouldn`t take the lens of examination totally off Christian base countries (usually European and the Americas) in that regards. The potential exists for a flare up in theocracy anywhere that there is a large number of people believing in a particular religion.

Again, it comes down to being "pro-active" or "reactive." It is always much easier to prevent rather than roll back.

There is nothing ?gwrong?h with ?greligion?h per se. It is unnecessary, irrelevant, pointless and representative of primitive thinking ?| in my view. But that is only my view.

Agreed, somewhat. But, I will be the first to accept religion if it can be shown to be valid and true in what it claims. IN that sense, I will not dismiss the possibility that one is, but as of yet, I have not come across that one. Until I do, I have to say there is a lot "wrong" with religion.

It is, to a great many people, a great comfort, a great solace, and a great guide to the way they see their lives and put them into context. Good luck to them, I say.

I wish all people good luck in their personal lives. Religion (mostly Christianity and Islam) though, does not only deal with the personal. They are compelled by the nature of their religion to spread, which they cloak in the word of "sharing."

As for being a comfort and solace, mind altering drugs can do the same. Perhaps that is why Karl Marx(?) said it was the "opium of the masses."

I just ask of them - ?gDon?ft shove it at me!?h

And any individual religionist will politely smile and say they don`t and won`t, but then an umbrella group/org which they are a member of will in some other way on a larger scale which you may not notice is eating away at your freedoms or tax dollars. Religion creep is hard to notice because people think that if religionists are not knocking on their doors, then all is well. But, sometimes the levels from which the future oppression is coming from, is at a position where one just doesn`t notice it. By the time it is noticed, it may be too late.

Just a thought to think about.

There is nothing ?gwrong?h with the concept of religion. We all have one ?| however we feel and whatever we believe in!

Yes, if a belief system is benign -- I agree. When it becomes dogmatic and with extaordinary claims that cannot be verified and lend themselves to manipulations to move millions of people against rational thought which results in suffering, then there is something wrong.

For example, I am not a Taoist or Deist (although I find them more acceptable as a belief system than the other main religions), but these two belief systems do not have a dogma that is oppressive or have ever been hijacked and used to cause widespread destruction and suffering. But believe me, I would never go out of my way to defend them and if criticism were lobbed at them, I would probably respond with, "it may be quite possible that your criticisms are wholly acurate. I wouldn`t presume to know."

Just watch the guys running it ?c. And promoting it, whatever it is?c that?fs all!
They?fre all human! ?c. With human weaknesses and desires ?c?c
?W????

I don`t mind weaknesses. We all have them. I just don`t want millions of people to have to pay with their lives for the weaknesses of others. Religious fervor fosters that.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Something just gets into people. Religious fervor does that. Some people are strong enough to use reason or common sense to combat it, but others are not.

Sunday, June 4, a man decides to put God to the test over his existence, believing that HE would be protected:

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Full story here: Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God​

Cause of death: A willingness to abandon reason from a a misguided belief in a personal God that cares about us promoted by various religions.

I just hope that the lions did not have to pay with their lives for religion induced delusions.

---------------------------------------------------------

*Here are the brave gals who successfuly protected their territory and got a snack as a result.

 

[Revenant]

Religious fervor afflicts not only those of faith.

 

[Ma Cherie]

Interesting article SVF, but I believe that God gave mankind common sense.

 

[Mycernius]

Candidate for the Darwin award.

Religious fervor afflicts not only those of faith.

Quite right. How many people do the same in war, or with technology?

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." (General John Sedgwick, battle of Spotsylvania, 1864)

Famous last words. He had faith in the enemies lack of ability.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Revenant,

Religious fervor afflicts not only those of faith.

Why would it be "religious fervor" if someone did not have "faith" in a religion?

"Zeal" in something affects many who do not have a religious faith. But then that "zeal" would not be so-called "religious fervor," would it?

But admittedly, zeal in something could be as strong as religious fervor in some people. But then again, that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Revenant]

It's connected to the topic of the thread, as solely highlighting zeal in people of faith is like highlighting that Toyotas produce ozone damaging C0-2 emissions.

Faith not taken too far, is actually beneficial. I would say that the majority of theists do not fit the profile of the man in your article.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It's connected to the topic of the thread, as solely highlighting zeal in people of faith is like highlighting that Toyotas produce ozone damaging C0-2 emissions.

Hi Revenant,

I am just wondering how there can be "religious fervor" in people who have no faith -- which is what you referred to. Could you answer me that question? It just sounds like an oxymoron or riddle of some sorts.

Faith not taken too far, is actually beneficial.

I agree that having faith that my wife will not cheat on me every time she walks out the door, and having faith that I will not have an accident on any given day driving to work is beneficial -- because if I didn`t exercise faith like that, I would be neurotic. But that is not "religious" faith in a personal God.

If there is no proof of a personal God, and believing in non-proof is delusional, then how can that be beneficial over all in the larger scheme of things?

I would say that the majority of theists do not fit the profile of the man in your article.

I agree. Most do not jump into lion exhibits. However, getting caught up in religious fervor is detrimental to more than just the occassional person who jumps into a lion exhibit. What about the suicide bombers who believe they will be going to paradise as a martyre where virgins are awaiting them? Religious fervor and the willingness to abandon reason leads them to believe in these things. They have "faith" that that is awaiting them and in the meantime many others pay a horrible death for their faith.

 

[Revenant]

When I said religious fervor, I was simply trying to get across that the same kind of fervor isn't present only in those of faith. I understand that fervor not inspired by religious beliefs could be better termed.

I'm not denying that some of the beliefs that a few religious people hold are detrimental to themselves and others, but those few don't seem to understand their own religion well.

That man who believed God would protect him from the lions either misunderstood the verse 'thou shalt not put thy Lord thy God to the test' or he hadn't read it. He also didn't understand that humans are to do their best to love themselves and love others as themselves, and that part of loving oneself is not putting oneself in unnecessary danger.

As to a belief in a personal God, a lot believe that God will decide what's best, and if God allows someone to suffer or die, that God knew what was best. Personally, I hardly see anything wrong with a person sick in bed, praying to God to help him through this time, and that God will do as he sees best. If God decides to take him, then the sick person believes that God can see the whole picture, and knows this is better than allowing the sick person to live.

Now can you cite for me what percentage of Muslims actually strap bombs on themselves? Would you say that there are no other non-religious beliefs that don't inspire people to do similar actions?

 

[Mycernius]

Religion doesn't have to be about an idea based on a deity. A religion could be anything that you can follow with zeal. For example your belief in vegetarianism is like a religion to you. You follow the rules and preach against those who eat meat. There is no God or holy book involved, but you will cite research papers, personal experience, other peoples experience. You have even mentioned that your conversion was an epiphany, two words usually connected with religion.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You fall into definition 4

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Revenant,

When I said religious fervor, I was simply trying to get across that the same kind of fervor isn't present only in those of faith. I understand that fervor not inspired by religious beliefs could be better termed.

Fine, I understand now. However, even in this para, when you write "same kind of" it is being misleading (though, I don`t think purposefully).

I'm not denying that some of the beliefs that a few religious people hold are detrimental to themselves and others, but those few don't seem to understand their own religion well.

They would take strong issue with you on that.

That man who believed God would protect him from the lions either misunderstood the verse 'thou shalt not put thy Lord thy God to the test' or he hadn't read it.

That is one of the big problems with the Christian Bible -- it is made to order for whatever part one attracts a particular personality. In Mark it gives orders to "test God." One can drink poison or handle snakes and no harm is to come to them. It is a contradiction. People have to choose which passage they like most, and apparantly this guy chose the "ok to test" passage but decided the poison and snakes were not literal and that a substitute (lion in this case) would do just fine.

Perhaps he had a strange Concordance dictionary or a book on hermaneutics that said a "snake" could be rendered in meaning as a lion. Who knows? The inner workings of a delusional mind are baffling and this guy demonstrated it quite well.

He also didn't understand that humans are to do their best to love themselves and love others as themselves, and that part of loving oneself is not putting oneself in unnecessary danger.

I totally agree with you, Revenant. The Bible however, in places, has examples to the contrary. Again, it comes down to picking and choosing and a book that leads itself open to interpretation any way of a 100 different denominations chooses to their liking.

As to a belief in a personal God, a lot believe that God will decide what's best, and if God allows someone to suffer or die, that God knew what was best.

Some problems with Free Will, and others, are inherant in this.

Personally, I hardly see anything wrong with a person sick in bed, praying to God to help him through this time, and that God will do as he sees best. If God decides to take him, then the sick person believes that God can see the whole picture, and knows this is better than allowing the sick person to live.

Nothing wrong if the guy lives in a vaccume without any others depending on him. But, if he is refusing transfusions and other treatments because he thinks God will heal him, or in a worse case, refusing treatment for his children if they are sick, then there is something wrong.

Now can you cite for me what percentage of Muslims actually strap bombs on themselves?

I am sure it is low.

Would you say that there are no other non-religious beliefs that don't inspire people to do similar actions?

Of course not. The Japanese were flying bombs -- although they were involved in a kind of Emperror Worship.

I am sure there are non-religious people in orgs which have blown themselves up, however, in general by and large, religious fervor tends to have a near monopoly on this thing -- at least in modern times.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Mycernius,

Religion doesn't have to be about an idea based on a deity. (1)A religion could be anything that you can follow with zeal. (2)For example your belief in vegetarianism is like a religion to you. You follow the rules and preach against those who eat meat. There is no God or holy book involved, but you will cite research papers, personal experience, other peoples experience. (3)You have even mentioned that your conversion was an epiphany, two words usually connected with religion.

Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.​

(4)You fall into definition 4

(1) Then boyscotts who are into scouting with zeal are practicing a religion? Soccer players? Politicians?

(2) I guess one could use view it as religion (see #4 definition above) if one is to take the least common use of the term. However, vegetarianism is not a belief system that coerces through threat of eternal damnation causing people to burn beings to the stake, blow others up with the intent purpose of killing them, etc...

(3) By use of #4, anything that someone is passionate about or something that caused them to change their views through personal enlightenment, could then be considered a religion. Most do not apply the term as such. Only those on the periphery.

(4) Yes, however, in this case the term "religion" is usually affixed to something in the adverbial form. eg:

1. She religiously avoids meat.
2. He religiously brushes his teeth 3 times a day.​

or even as a noun, the #4 (least popular and most vague of the meanings) is viewed as a strong liking of something -- not abandoning reason for the belief in the supernatural.

1. Cycling is his religion.
2. Writing is his religion.​

If anything, #4 is the most grounded of them all and is seen in countless everyday life of simple hobbies and persuits.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Christians sure do make getting an abortion an ordeal. Already, the lady may be in emotional distress, and Christians decide they are going to add to that by lining the sidewalks outside abortion clinics to meet in-coming women who have decided for personal reasons to terminate.

In fact, some clinics and hospitals have discontinued offering the procedure out of fear of religious extremists, making women to have to go through a not so simple process of finding a place nearby. Even professionals in the health care industry are using their religion to deny prescribing the Plan B prescription after a night of unprotected sex which would prevent having to go through a more dangerous surgical procedure later.

A lot of this is fueled by conservatism which for the most part derive their support base from the religious right.

Dana, a 42-year-old mother of two, never meant to get pregnant again. But, then she did.

Meanwhile, I hadn't even been able to get Plan B with a prescription that Friday, because in Virginia, health-care practitioners apparently are allowed to refuse to prescribe any drug that goes against their beliefs. Although I had heard of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds, I was dumbfounded to find that doctors could do the same thing.

...

I called Planned Parenthood two days in advance to confirm the appointment. The receptionist politely informed me that the organization never confirms appointments, for "security reasons,"

...

I shuffled to the front door through a phalanx of umbrellaed protesters, who chanted loudly about Jesus and chided me not to go into that house of abortion.

...

All the while, I was thinking that if religion hadn't been allowed to seep into American politics the way it has, I wouldn't even be there. This all could have been stopped way before this baby was conceived if they had just let me have that damn pill.

...

It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

Excerpts from Washington Post story: What Happens When There Is No Plan B?
By Dana L.
Sunday, June 4, 2006; Page B01​

However, the administration did not politicize religion; instead religion has a grip of fear on the health worker industry, and professionals are letting the belief of a fictional book and character color their decisions.

This causes harm.

 

[Mycernius]

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You activley persue, with zeal and devotion, to your belief of vegetarianism, and will state often that all people should convert to a vegetarian diet. Most scouts, footballers etc, do not go around trying to convert people to their way of life, you do. In fact in one of your very early posts you mentioned that you even go up to people in restaurants and trell them the benefit of a vegetarian diet. That is exactly the same thing a devout Christian, Muslim etc, will do. There is no difference between the approach and the end result that you wish for. They want you to believe in their God, you want people to believe in vegetarianism.

(2) I guess one could use view it as religion (see #4 definition above) if one is to take the least common use of the term. However, vegetarianism is not a belief system that coerces through threat of eternal damnation causing people to burn beings to the stake, blow others up with the intent purpose of killing them, etc...

While you do not do the following for vegetarianism there is another one of your beleifs that you follow that does burn buildings and threaten people with violence and that is your view on animal rights. You have stated that you belief in direct action. The more active AR groups use violence and threats to coerces people into doing what they say. It is done with zeal and a religious fervor that can be said is the same for extremely religious people. Soime are willing to suffer for their beliefs. In the end both the extreme followers of God, Vegetarianism, Animal rights, Pro-lifers, Atheists and any other group think they are going good for the benefit of all humans. Each is imposing its will on people by force via violent acts or constant harassing of people. What they are really doing is causing stress and a feeling of ill will towards whatever they believe in, but their devotion to their cause blinds them to this fact.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi Mycernius,

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.​

You activley persue, with zeal and devotion, to your belief of vegetarianism, and will state often that all people should convert to a vegetarian diet. Most scouts, footballers etc, do not go around trying to convert people to their way of life, you do.

The definition does not say that "conversion" is a part of religion, does it? If not, then the boyscouts, soccer players, etc...would still and could still qualify as religions under that #4.

In fact in one of your very early posts you mentioned that you even go up to people in restaurants and trell them the benefit of a vegetarian diet. That is exactly the same thing a devout Christian, Muslim etc, will do.

Mycernius, could you please show me that post? I think you may be confusing me with another poster. I have never accosted a person in a restaurant while they were having their dinner.

There is no difference between the approach and the end result that you wish for. They want you to believe in their God, you want people to believe in vegetarianism.

Religion has the baggage of a spiritual realm that is not provable. Republicans want others to become Republicans and their zeal at campaigning to enlargen their party does not turn them into a religion. However, they may campaign "religiously" (i.e. using the adverbial form of the concept). But, that does not make them a religion.

While you do not do the following for vegetarianism there is another one of your beleifs that you follow that does burn buildings and threaten people with violence and that is your view on animal rights. You have stated that you belief in direct action. The more active AR groups use violence and threats to coerces people into doing what they say. It is done with zeal and a religious fervor that can be said is the same for extremely religious people.

It is not a religion, so it can`t be religious fervor.

Soime are willing to suffer for their beliefs. In the end both the extreme followers of God, Vegetarianism, Animal rights, Pro-lifers, Atheists and any other group think they are going good for the benefit of all humans. Each is imposing its will on people by force via violent acts or constant harassing of people. What they are really doing is causing stress and a feeling of ill will towards whatever they believe in, but their devotion to their cause blinds them to this fact.

Quite true. I won`t argue against what you said. Lots of orgs overlap in their mechanics of how they do things and get their goals realized, but that does not make orgs that do their actions with zeal religions.

Religions are quite effective in getting their agendas out and across to large portions of the population -- as well as are governments. Why reinvent the wheel when religions and governments have already shown what works. Activists just take a page out of the history playbook. But, adopting some activist tactics of religious groups does not make them a religion, no more than me adopting the tactic of shoveling rice into my mouth with chopsticks makes me Japanese.

Are Atheists who work hard to spread Atheism religious people? Sounds like an oxymoron.

------------------------------------------------
*Interesting exchange, Mycernius.