Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[Foxfyre]

Atheists are in stellar company. I know you will recognize your own mindset in the following. Zealot atheists are fascists, pure and simple. Talk to us about hate. Atheists are anti-education, anti-Christian fascists who has committed some of the most heinous crimes the world has ever seen.:

"Most Communist governments have been officially anti-clerical, abolishing religious holidays, teaching atheism in schools, closing monasteries, church social and educational institutions and many churches.[52] In the Soviet Union, anti-clericalism was expressed through the state; in the first five years alone after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed."

Anti-clericalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler said (taken from the book Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, His Private Conversatios):

"“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.”

“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.”

"...Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.”

“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”

“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.”

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.”

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.”

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.”

“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”


“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Thanks for the quotes. It proves to me his regime was not a Christian one, but just the opposite.

It proves to me that he used Christianity to farther his cause but didn't believe a word of it. A common enough practice since the origins of the faith...

Yes, throughout the history of Christianity, corrupt popes and monarchs and totalitarian governments and others in power have used Chrsitianity and other religions as a bludgeon to further their own personal and political ambitions. And of course the Atheists and other anti-religionists focus on that as the sum total of what Christianity or religion is--sort of as a propaganda bludgeon.

But the history of Christianity by and large shows an improvement in the culture, humanity, and personal well being of those who have embraced it, something the anti-religionists turn a deaf ear and blind eye to and refuse to even consider that, much less accept it as the reality.

And the fact that the smallest child has a sense of the divine, something larger than himself, an instinctive sense of God, even though he has no words to define or express it, is also the reality. And explains why there has been no culture in the history of humankind that does not have some sense of deity or supreme beings.

 

[Underhill]

Thanks for the quotes. It proves to me his regime was not a Christian one, but just the opposite.

It proves to me that he used Christianity to farther his cause but didn't believe a word of it. A common enough practice since the origins of the faith...

Yes, throughout the history of Christianity, corrupt popes and monarchs and totalitarian governments and others in power have used Chrsitianity and other religions as a bludgeon to further their own personal and political ambitions. And of course the Atheists and other anti-religionists focus on that as the sum total of what Christianity or religion is--sort of as a propaganda bludgeon.

But the history of Christianity by and large shows an improvement in the culture, humanity, and personal well being of those who have embraced it, something the anti-religionists turn a deaf ear and blind eye to and refuse to even consider that, much less accept it as the reality.

Really? So it has everything to do with the church and nothing to do with science and technology? Since the dark ages lives have improved, but can you honestly say it was the responsibility of the church or god?

After all, the god of Abraham was supposedly around for 6-8,000 years before our modern age. Don't you think god would have brought about those changes a bit sooner? In point of fact, one could make the argument that these changes were in spite of the church. I won't go that far, as I think the church has sometimes helped and sometimes hindered, but I do not buy that the church was the cause of these improvements.

 

[Foxfyre]

It proves to me that he used Christianity to farther his cause but didn't believe a word of it. A common enough practice since the origins of the faith...

Yes, throughout the history of Christianity, corrupt popes and monarchs and totalitarian governments and others in power have used Chrsitianity and other religions as a bludgeon to further their own personal and political ambitions. And of course the Atheists and other anti-religionists focus on that as the sum total of what Christianity or religion is--sort of as a propaganda bludgeon.

But the history of Christianity by and large shows an improvement in the culture, humanity, and personal well being of those who have embraced it, something the anti-religionists turn a deaf ear and blind eye to and refuse to even consider that, much less accept it as the reality.

Really? So it has everything to do with the church and nothing to do with science and technology? Since the dark ages lives have improved, but can you honestly say it was the responsibility of the church or god?

After all, the god of Abraham was supposedly around for 6-8,000 years before our modern age. Don't you think god would have brought about those changes a bit sooner? In point of fact, one could make the argument that these changes were in spite of the church. I won't go that far, as I think the church has sometimes helped and sometimes hindered, but I do not buy that the church was the cause of these improvements.

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

 

[Underhill]

Yes, throughout the history of Christianity, corrupt popes and monarchs and totalitarian governments and others in power have used Chrsitianity and other religions as a bludgeon to further their own personal and political ambitions. And of course the Atheists and other anti-religionists focus on that as the sum total of what Christianity or religion is--sort of as a propaganda bludgeon.

But the history of Christianity by and large shows an improvement in the culture, humanity, and personal well being of those who have embraced it, something the anti-religionists turn a deaf ear and blind eye to and refuse to even consider that, much less accept it as the reality.

Really? So it has everything to do with the church and nothing to do with science and technology? Since the dark ages lives have improved, but can you honestly say it was the responsibility of the church or god?

After all, the god of Abraham was supposedly around for 6-8,000 years before our modern age. Don't you think god would have brought about those changes a bit sooner? In point of fact, one could make the argument that these changes were in spite of the church. I won't go that far, as I think the church has sometimes helped and sometimes hindered, but I do not buy that the church was the cause of these improvements.

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

 

[Underhill]

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

I would also point out that while christianity may have been a few thousand years down the road from Abraham, it is the same god according to your bible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? So it has everything to do with the church and nothing to do with science and technology? Since the dark ages lives have improved, but can you honestly say it was the responsibility of the church or god?

After all, the god of Abraham was supposedly around for 6-8,000 years before our modern age. Don't you think god would have brought about those changes a bit sooner? In point of fact, one could make the argument that these changes were in spite of the church. I won't go that far, as I think the church has sometimes helped and sometimes hindered, but I do not buy that the church was the cause of these improvements.

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

The average citizen in the Roman Empire at its height was certainly not better off than was the average citizen of say Fifteenth Century Europe. And the Roman Empire was in serious disarray culturally, economically, and politically in the Third Century when Constantine, recognizing the superior organizational abilities of the Christian church, drew on that and made Christianity the favored religion of the land. Christianity didn't save the 'Empire', but the lands that comprised the "Empire" had been infused with Christinaity and they continued to prosper more than those in which other religions were more prevalent.

Can you point to how invention and reason was exclusive of the Church? I don't think that you can even though the Church itself, as did some elements of paganism, rejected some scientific theory and punished those who put it forth. Pretty much as is the case within liberalism and Atheism now if somebody dares trample on a scientific sacred cow. Science still managed to gain a foothold, and a great deal of scientific knowledge was produced within the Christian community.

The fact remains, as much as you wish to dismiss it as relevant or otherwise pooh pooh it, predominantly Christian countries by and large prosper more than those countries in which Chrsitinaity is not a compelling force. And even in some countries, like India, in which Christians are a distinct minority, the Christian communities seem to thrive better than do the Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic communities. To paraphrase conversations with a friend, former Executive Director of the YWCA in Madras, India, she herself an Indian native who is a Christian, she is not certain whether people prosper because they are Christian, or whether they are Chrsitian because they prosper. For her it didn't make much difference as she saw God's hand in either scenario.

And to drag this train back onto the tracks here, that God of Abraham was indeed the God of First Century Israel. Same God but within different cultures and different understandings. And if Israel's God IS God, it only stands to reason that He makes himself know to the most innocent of His creation. They are aware of His presence even when they cannot fully understand it or explain it or discribe it.

And that too would explain why every culture known to humankind has been religious in some way.

 

[koshergrl]

When government interferes with religion, in the form of banning or controlling the worship of the people, bloodshed invariably ensues.

So the way we avoid that is we keep the government mitts off religion. Stay out of the fucking churches, stop seeking to prosecute and persecute people for exercising religious freedom, and stop trying to enable the government to tell us who may, and may not, worship and how they may worship.

 

[PratchettFan]

Really? So it has everything to do with the church and nothing to do with science and technology? Since the dark ages lives have improved, but can you honestly say it was the responsibility of the church or god?

After all, the god of Abraham was supposedly around for 6-8,000 years before our modern age. Don't you think god would have brought about those changes a bit sooner? In point of fact, one could make the argument that these changes were in spite of the church. I won't go that far, as I think the church has sometimes helped and sometimes hindered, but I do not buy that the church was the cause of these improvements.

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

When government interferes with religion, in the form of banning or controlling the worship of the people, bloodshed invariably ensues.

So the way we avoid that is we keep the government mitts off religion. Stay out of the fucking churches, stop seeking to prosecute and persecute people for exercising religious freedom, and stop trying to enable the government to tell us who may, and may not, worship and how they may worship.

If only you actually meant that. I suspect what you really mean is the government should keep its hands off your religion. Not necessarily my religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

There are exceptions of course. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for his scientific views--he was subsequently reinstated posthumously with apologies by the Church. In 2000, Pope John Paul II formally apologized to all scientists and others that has been erroneously mischaracterized by well intended but misinformed Church heirarchy over the centures.

But you are correct that Christian influences enhanced the arts, great architecture, enduring music, and knowledge in all things including scientific research in the great educational institutions built mostly by the Church. Even in America, 106 of the first 108 colleges were started by Christian groups. In 1860, 229 of 246 colleges in America had been founded by Christian denominations. And despite all the errors, all the injustices, all the things the Church got wrong over more than 2,000 years, no religion has had more profound and positive influence on the world, most especailly this country, than has Christianity.

And I still deeply believe that every human is born with an instinctive sense of God, by whatever name God is called, from the very beginning.

 

[koshergrl]

When government interferes with religion, in the form of banning or controlling the worship of the people, bloodshed invariably ensues.

So the way we avoid that is we keep the government mitts off religion. Stay out of the fucking churches, stop seeking to prosecute and persecute people for exercising religious freedom, and stop trying to enable the government to tell us who may, and may not, worship and how they may worship.

If only you actually meant that. I suspect what you really mean is the government should keep its hands off your religion. Not necessarily my religion.

Try to stick to what is actually said, not what you imagine.

No, I mean religion should keep its hand off the religion, and the religious practices, of citizens.

That is, incidentally, a uniquestly Christian tenet.

 

[PratchettFan]

When government interferes with religion, in the form of banning or controlling the worship of the people, bloodshed invariably ensues.

So the way we avoid that is we keep the government mitts off religion. Stay out of the fucking churches, stop seeking to prosecute and persecute people for exercising religious freedom, and stop trying to enable the government to tell us who may, and may not, worship and how they may worship.

If only you actually meant that. I suspect what you really mean is the government should keep its hands off your religion. Not necessarily my religion.

Try to stick to what is actually said, not what you imagine.

No, I mean religion should keep its hand off the religion, and the religious practices, of citizens.

That is, incidentally, a uniquestly Christian tenet.

I've read your posts and I don't buy your claim here. But let's find out.

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

 

[PratchettFan]

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

There are exceptions of course. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for his scientific views--he was subsequently reinstated posthumously with apologies by the Church. In 2000, Pope John Paul II formally apologized to all scientists and others that has been erroneously mischaracterized by well intended but misinformed Church heirarchy over the centures.

But you are correct that Christian influences enhanced the arts, great architecture, enduring music, and knowledge in all things including scientific research in the great educational institutions built mostly by the Church. Even in America, 106 of the first 108 colleges were started by Christian groups. In 1860, 229 of 246 colleges in America had been founded by Christian denominations. And despite all the errors, all the injustices, all the things the Church got wrong over more than 2,000 years, no religion has had more profound and positive influence on the world, most especailly this country, than has Christianity.

And I still deeply believe that every human is born with an instinctive sense of God, by whatever name God is called, from the very beginning.

I concur. There is no good side or bad side in this. Religion and science are both human endeavors, and you will find good and bad in any human endeavor. There is much which one could point to in science which has been not nice at all, and much in religion. But it is not because either science or religion is inherently good or bad. It is because people are.

I see no problem with your belief. I don't share it, but that is fine. I have my own beliefs. My feeling on that is that in the absence of any information, it is all a blind guess. So you go with the guess which feels right to you. That's not at all scientific, but science isn't everything.

 

[Underhill]

Hey friend, you usually follow better and are more logical than you are in this post.

Did I say science and technology have played no part in improving the lot of humans? No I didn't. Is science and technology the ONLY way to improve the lot of humans? I didn't say that either. Did you suggest that though?

What does the time of Abraham have to do with Christianity improving the culture, humanity, and personal circumstances of people pretty much everywhere it has become the prevailing religion? (News flash, Christianity was a few millenia on down the road from Abraham.) Does it happen with every individual? No. Does it happen in ever single case? No. But can a case be made that Christian nations have more usually prospered more than non-Christian nations? Sure looks that way to me.

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

I'm not claiming everything the church did was bad, or good. I'm saying it isn't true that the church invariably means good things for society.

Roman culture may not have been perfect, but it was the best at the time. And they were certainly not christian. China, Egypt, and Greece are other examples.

If I had to pick one thing that led to cultural success it would be the idea of universal rule of law. Which is not exclusive to christians. China had a strong legal structure over a thousand years before modern christianity was spreading through Europe. And Chinese standards of living, while hard to compare directly, seem as high, and probably higher, than Europe for at least 500 years and probably twice that long.

 

[koshergrl]

If only you actually meant that. I suspect what you really mean is the government should keep its hands off your religion. Not necessarily my religion.

Try to stick to what is actually said, not what you imagine.

No, I mean religion should keep its hand off the religion, and the religious practices, of citizens.

That is, incidentally, a uniquestly Christian tenet.

I've read your posts and I don't buy your claim here. But let's find out.

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that? It depends on whether or not they are breaking the law. If they are stealing other people's animals, then no, the government has the right to intervene. If they are participating in cruelty to animals, which is illegal, then yes, the law should stop it. Otherwise, no, the government has no right to intervene.

There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that? If it actually happened, then yes, because it is murder. We had due process here. But of course you're lying. There are no religions in this country that burn witches. If witches are being burned, it's in other countries where human rights violations take place regularly, and my guess is they are already theocracies..most likely muslim ones.


There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

Nope, because those are illegal practices.

So thanks for the illogical fallacies and straw men which have nothing to do with anything. I've never proposed that human rights violations, theft, or anything else illegal be allowed because it falls under the umbrella of religious freedom. Religious freedom exists to the point that the exercise of it violates the rights of other people. At least in this country. And I've never maintained that it should be extended beyond that. We have the right to freedom of speech, and we have freedom of religion. We do not have the right to hurt others. Sorry you don't understand that. And we don't have a right to be sheltered from ideas we don't like.

 

[PratchettFan]

Again I would have to disagree.

Rome, Greece and Egypt were all a powers long before Christianity came on the scene and had one of the highest standards of living on the planet in their day.

In all three cases their cultures were not better off when christianity came on the scene.

I understand what you are talking about. It's an easy mistake to make if you look at Anglo-history. But looking at Europe, and later the US as an example ignores the rest of history. And I stand by what I said. Much of the reason Europe and later America were leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world had much more to do with invention and reason than god and the church.

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

I'm not claiming everything the church did was bad, or good. I'm saying it isn't true that the church invariably means good things for society.

Roman culture may not have been perfect, but it was the best at the time. And they were certainly not christian. China, Egypt, and Greece are other examples.

If I had to pick one thing that led to cultural success it would be the idea of universal rule of law. Which is not exclusive to christians. China had a strong legal structure over a thousand years before modern christianity was spreading through Europe. And Chinese standards of living, while hard to compare directly, seem as high, and probably higher, than Europe for at least 500 years and probably twice that long.

I'll agree with that. No human group invariably means good things for society. People are people no matter what.

I'm not sure what you mean by the universal rule of law. We've had that ever since the first guy was big enough to force his wishes on the rest of the clan.

 

[Hollie]

Try to stick to what is actually said, not what you imagine.

No, I mean religion should keep its hand off the religion, and the religious practices, of citizens.

That is, incidentally, a uniquestly Christian tenet.

I've read your posts and I don't buy your claim here. But let's find out.

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that? It depends on whether or not they are breaking the law. If they are stealing other people's animals, then no, the government has the right to intervene. If they are participating in cruelty to animals, which is illegal, then yes, the law should stop it. Otherwise, no, the government has no right to intervene.

There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that? If it actually happened, then yes, because it is murder. We had due process here. But of course you're lying. There are no religions in this country that burn witches. If witches are being burned, it's in other countries where human rights violations take place regularly, and my guess is they are already theocracies..most likely muslim ones.


There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

Nope, because those are illegal practices.

So thanks for the illogical fallacies and straw men which have nothing to do with anything. I've never proposed that human rights violations, theft, or anything else illegal be allowed because it falls under the umbrella of religious freedom. Religious freedom exists to the point that the exercise of it violates the rights of other people. At least in this country. And I've never maintained that it should be extended beyond that. We have the right to freedom of speech, and we have freedom of religion. We do not have the right to hurt others. Sorry you don't understand that. And we don't have a right to be sheltered from ideas we don't like.

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

 

[PratchettFan]

Try to stick to what is actually said, not what you imagine.

No, I mean religion should keep its hand off the religion, and the religious practices, of citizens.

That is, incidentally, a uniquestly Christian tenet.

I've read your posts and I don't buy your claim here. But let's find out.

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that? It depends on whether or not they are breaking the law. If they are stealing other people's animals, then no, the government has the right to intervene. If they are participating in cruelty to animals, which is illegal, then yes, the law should stop it. Otherwise, no, the government has no right to intervene.

There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that? If it actually happened, then yes, because it is murder. We had due process here. But of course you're lying. There are no religions in this country that burn witches. If witches are being burned, it's in other countries where human rights violations take place regularly, and my guess is they are already theocracies..most likely muslim ones.


There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

Nope, because those are illegal practices.

So thanks for the illogical fallacies and straw men which have nothing to do with anything. I've never proposed that human rights violations, theft, or anything else illegal be allowed because it falls under the umbrella of religious freedom. Religious freedom exists to the point that the exercise of it violates the rights of other people. At least in this country. And I've never maintained that it should be extended beyond that. We have the right to freedom of speech, and we have freedom of religion. We do not have the right to hurt others. Sorry you don't understand that. And we don't have a right to be sheltered from ideas we don't like.

Actually, the recent witch burnings were in New Guinea, a primarily Christian country. Their mulsim population is less than 1% and they are not the problem. But your automatic assumption is noted.

I realize you were not proposing human rights violations. You weren't actually proposing anything at all. You just weren't thinking about what it was you were saying.

So, basically what you are saying (as I suspected) is that the government should keep its hands off of religious practices you approve of. Not those you don't approve of. As I said before, you want your religion protected - not my religion.

 

[varelse]

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

yes, so long as the animal is killed humanely (same standard as for food)
yes
only if they burn them after they die a from unrelated causes
yes, no, no, and no

But you should be free to believe in any of those things. Your right to practice is simply limited like all other actions when it conflicts with another person's rights.

Not that complicated, really.

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

Are you an ethical vegitarian?

 

[PratchettFan]

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

yes, so long as the animal is killed humanely (same standard as for food)
yes
only if they burn them after they die a from unrelated causes
yes, no, no, and no

But you should be free to believe in any of those things. Your right to practice is simply limited like all other actions when it conflicts with another person's rights.

Not that complicated, really.

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

Are you an ethical vegitarian?

It's not complicated? The argument was that the government should keep its hands off of religious practices. Everything I mentioned was a religious practice. The response was those things were against the law, which is what it means when the government puts its hands on something. So the government should keep it hands off religious practices unless it puts its hands on it. Seems complicated to me. Or at least contradictory.

BTW. Animal sacrifice as part of a religious practice is legal in the US. Just a little factoid.