I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to religion, in
fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
inevitable reality for man, 2. I believe that Christianity is one of
the better options, 3. I believe it is possible to criticize
Christianity without becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad rap,
4. I believe atheists should criticize the worst manifestations of any
religion and use the best in any religion to challenge its believers.

My intent is not to create any antagonism, only to reason with those
who find this topic of interest.  If we disagree, we can have a good
time trying to defend our positions.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
<gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to religion,
> in fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
> inevitable reality for man,

Despite it being wrong (and not very inevitable given how fragile
faith is).

> 2. I believe that Christianity is one of the better options,

Actually it's probably one of the worst when it comes to violence and
oppression.

> 3. I believe it is possible to criticize Christianity without
> becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad rap,

A lot of people who believed that have found out the hard way that
it's actually isn't.

The basic problem is that criticism of religion has become something
of a taboo in our society to the point at which even mild criticism is
considered obnoxious.

I wouldn't expect the regular theists in here to do any of that but
there are a lot of religious people in the real world who take offence
at even mild criticisms.

What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options? It has,
over its 2000 year existence, pursued murder, warfare, and genocide
to impose its beliefs on others. It has, and continues to in many
circles, subjucated women. It has, and continues to in most of its
derivatives, mentally abused small children with fairy tales about
going to hell for simply having "impure" thoughts. In some cases it
has sanctioned and protected the physical abuse of children, even to
this day. Can all these things be said about Hinduism, Buddhism,
Judaism? Can any of these things be said about those 3 religions?



--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
<gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to religion,
in
> fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
> inevitable reality for man, 2. I believe that Christianity is one
of
> the better options, 3. I believe it is possible to criticize
> Christianity without becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad
rap,
> 4. I believe atheists should criticize the worst manifestations of
any
> religion and use the best in any religion to challenge its
believers.
>
> My intent is not to create any antagonism, only to reason with
those
> who find this topic of interest.  If we disagree, we can have a
good
> time trying to defend our positions.
>

How do you define "better" in this context?

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
<gladflyweather@...> wrote:

  2. I believe that Christianity is one of
> the better options

It is easy to overlook the diversity of Christianity, even at its beginning.
Lumping all different groups in one which you describe, mostly medieval
Catholicism, commits at the least the logical fallacy of composition.  It
appears the violence of Catholicism began with the Roman Emperor Constantine
appropriating the nascent religion into his unification program for the
Empire.  Thus the combination of religion with the State provided fertile
ground to all kinds of abuses, both with people and with wealth.  Throughout
history State religions have caused these kinds of problems. Eastern
religions have not been so inclined, and Islam has a long history of
resistance to unification of religion with the State, based on recognition
of abuses at times of such unification in their history.  In Christianity,
the beginnings of Protestantism brought cessation to most of those abuses.
Perhaps judgment of Western religions, especially Christianity, should
better begin with the Age of Enlightenment.  The problems since then have
been caused by what became called the Fundamentalists and the plenary
literal interpretion of the Bible, but that form of Christianity gradually
has been minimized, especially from the beginning of the 20th century, and
most Fundies (Evangelicals) hold beliefs in countering violence in lieu of
helping needy people, with a strong emphasis on universal love.  The attacks
on Christianity by Richard Dawkins in particular, and partially by others,
have been directed at the Fundamentalists, in which he and others also
lumped all Christianity.  In criticisms and condemnations, it would be
better to pick out the particular Christian groups, some of which have
become cults, such as the Korish group in Waco, Texas, and the Falwell (dead
now), Pat Robertson, and other televangelist Fundies.

Richard.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Schwiebert" <schwbert_98@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


>  What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options? It has,
> over its 2000 year existence, pursued murder, warfare, and genocide
> to impose its beliefs on others. It has, and continues to in many
> circles, subjucated women. It has, and continues to in most of its
> derivatives, mentally abused small children with fairy tales about
> going to hell for simply having "impure" thoughts. In some cases it
> has sanctioned and protected the physical abuse of children, even to
> this day. Can all these things be said about Hinduism, Buddhism,
> Judaism? Can any of these things be said about those 3 religions?
>
>
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
> <gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>>
>> I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to religion,
> in
>> fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
>> inevitable reality for man, 2. I believe that Christianity is one
> of
>> the better options, 3. I believe it is possible to criticize
>> Christianity without becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad
> rap,
>> 4. I believe atheists should criticize the worst manifestations of
> any
>> religion and use the best in any religion to challenge its
> believers.
>>
>> My intent is not to create any antagonism, only to reason with
> those
>> who find this topic of interest.  If we disagree, we can have a
> good
>> time trying to defend our positions.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - Release Date: 1/7/2009
5:59 PM

I'm sure you all have noticed good ol' Dick always avoids the pertinent
question, which is always the main topic, and nitpicks at the follow ups.

Sure, it's all love and joy to each other of the same denominations but
there's a lot of hatred being passed around to anyone different. That's
a fact. The degrees in which this hatred is carried out is what you try
shift focus to when who really cares. Hate is hate.

Why don't you just debate the question?

Richard Godwin wrote:
> It is easy to overlook the diversity of Christianity, even at its beginning.
> Lumping all different groups in one which you describe, mostly medieval
> Catholicism, commits at the least the logical fallacy of composition.  It
> appears the violence of Catholicism began with the Roman Emperor Constantine
> appropriating the nascent religion into his unification program for the
> Empire.  Thus the combination of religion with the State provided fertile
> ground to all kinds of abuses, both with people and with wealth.  Throughout
> history State religions have caused these kinds of problems. Eastern
> religions have not been so inclined, and Islam has a long history of
> resistance to unification of religion with the State, based on recognition
> of abuses at times of such unification in their history.  In Christianity,
> the beginnings of Protestantism brought cessation to most of those abuses.
> Perhaps judgment of Western religions, especially Christianity, should
> better begin with the Age of Enlightenment.  The problems since then have
> been caused by what became called the Fundamentalists and the plenary
> literal interpretion of the Bible, but that form of Christianity gradually
> has been minimized, especially from the beginning of the 20th century, and
> most Fundies (Evangelicals) hold beliefs in countering violence in lieu of
> helping needy people, with a strong emphasis on universal love.  The attacks
> on Christianity by Richard Dawkins in particular, and partially by others,
> have been directed at the Fundamentalists, in which he and others also
> lumped all Christianity.  In criticisms and condemnations, it would be
> better to pick out the particular Christian groups, some of which have
> become cults, such as the Korish group in Waco, Texas, and the Falwell (dead
> now), Pat Robertson, and other televangelist Fundies.
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>
>>  What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options?

Clint you are really surprising.  I suggest the hate is in your own mind.  I
gave a pretty complete explanation directly addressing the problem
suggested.  So why don't you offer some evidence of your assertion here!

Richard.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint" <n1n31nchn3rd@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


> I'm sure you all have noticed good ol' Dick always avoids the pertinent
> question, which is always the main topic, and nitpicks at the follow ups.
>
> Sure, it's all love and joy to each other of the same denominations but
> there's a lot of hatred being passed around to anyone different. That's
> a fact. The degrees in which this hatred is carried out is what you try
> shift focus to when who really cares. Hate is hate.
>
> Why don't you just debate the question?
>
> Richard Godwin wrote:
>> It is easy to overlook the diversity of Christianity, even at its
>> beginning.
>> Lumping all different groups in one which you describe, mostly medieval
>> Catholicism, commits at the least the logical fallacy of composition.  It
>> appears the violence of Catholicism began with the Roman Emperor
>> Constantine
>> appropriating the nascent religion into his unification program for the
>> Empire.  Thus the combination of religion with the State provided fertile
>> ground to all kinds of abuses, both with people and with wealth.
>> Throughout
>> history State religions have caused these kinds of problems. Eastern
>> religions have not been so inclined, and Islam has a long history of
>> resistance to unification of religion with the State, based on
>> recognition
>> of abuses at times of such unification in their history.  In
>> Christianity,
>> the beginnings of Protestantism brought cessation to most of those
>> abuses.
>> Perhaps judgment of Western religions, especially Christianity, should
>> better begin with the Age of Enlightenment.  The problems since then have
>> been caused by what became called the Fundamentalists and the plenary
>> literal interpretion of the Bible, but that form of Christianity
>> gradually
>> has been minimized, especially from the beginning of the 20th century,
>> and
>> most Fundies (Evangelicals) hold beliefs in countering violence in lieu
>> of
>> helping needy people, with a strong emphasis on universal love.  The
>> attacks
>> on Christianity by Richard Dawkins in particular, and partially by
>> others,
>> have been directed at the Fundamentalists, in which he and others also
>> lumped all Christianity.  In criticisms and condemnations, it would be
>> better to pick out the particular Christian groups, some of which have
>> become cults, such as the Korish group in Waco, Texas, and the Falwell
>> (dead
>> now), Pat Robertson, and other televangelist Fundies.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>>  What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options?
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - Release Date: 1/7/2009
5:59 PM

Richard Godwin wrote:
> Clint you are really surprising.  I suggest the hate is in your own mind.  I
> gave a pretty complete explanation directly addressing the problem
> suggested.  So why don't you offer some evidence of your assertion here!
>
> Richard.

I read it. You defend it quite well. So you agree that christianity is
the better option?

While I left out Islam as an example of a religion which did not
commit genocide to impose its beliefs on others, I should have
included it. While it is true that Muslims conquered many regions and
spread their faith, they did not, as a rule, impose it on Christians
and Jews. Within the Caliphate Christians and Jews were tolerated,
allowed to practice their religions, but had to pay a special tax
which Muslims did not. While they were less tolerant of other non-
Abrahamic religions, they behaved much more humanely than Christians
ever did in the same circumstances.



--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
<gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to religion,
in
> fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
> inevitable reality for man, 2. I believe that Christianity is one
of
> the better options, 3. I believe it is possible to criticize
> Christianity without becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad
rap,
> 4. I believe atheists should criticize the worst manifestations of
any
> religion and use the best in any religion to challenge its
believers.
>
> My intent is not to create any antagonism, only to reason with
those
> who find this topic of interest.  If we disagree, we can have a
good
> time trying to defend our positions.
>

The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we can
trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times. Post
Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian doctrinal
support of slavery. We see the same with the Christian zeal for
colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse. We see
witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and subtley
encourages violence against and repression of non Christians. To say
it is less prevalent today is not a credit to Christian "diversity",
it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our lives.
Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see the same
behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
allowed.
   There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other faiths or
non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative Christian
sects which try to square all this up, but most of their brtheren
would say that are not Christian at all.

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
wrote:
>
> It is easy to overlook the diversity of Christianity, even at its
beginning.
> Lumping all different groups in one which you describe, mostly
medieval
> Catholicism, commits at the least the logical fallacy of
composition.  It
> appears the violence of Catholicism began with the Roman Emperor
Constantine
> appropriating the nascent religion into his unification program for
the
> Empire.  Thus the combination of religion with the State provided
fertile
> ground to all kinds of abuses, both with people and with wealth.
Throughout
> history State religions have caused these kinds of problems.
Eastern
> religions have not been so inclined, and Islam has a long history
of
> resistance to unification of religion with the State, based on
recognition
> of abuses at times of such unification in their history.  In
Christianity,
> the beginnings of Protestantism brought cessation to most of those
abuses.
> Perhaps judgment of Western religions, especially Christianity,
should
> better begin with the Age of Enlightenment.  The problems since
then have
> been caused by what became called the Fundamentalists and the
plenary
> literal interpretion of the Bible, but that form of Christianity
gradually
> has been minimized, especially from the beginning of the 20th
century, and
> most Fundies (Evangelicals) hold beliefs in countering violence in
lieu of
> helping needy people, with a strong emphasis on universal love.
The attacks
> on Christianity by Richard Dawkins in particular, and partially by
others,
> have been directed at the Fundamentalists, in which he and others
also
> lumped all Christianity.  In criticisms and condemnations, it would
be
> better to pick out the particular Christian groups, some of which
have
> become cults, such as the Korish group in Waco, Texas, and the
Falwell (dead
> now), Pat Robertson, and other televangelist Fundies.
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk Schwiebert" <schwbert_98@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:30 AM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
>
>
> >  What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options? It
has,
> > over its 2000 year existence, pursued murder, warfare, and
genocide
> > to impose its beliefs on others. It has, and continues to in many
> > circles, subjucated women. It has, and continues to in most of its
> > derivatives, mentally abused small children with fairy tales about
> > going to hell for simply having "impure" thoughts. In some cases
it
> > has sanctioned and protected the physical abuse of children, even
to
> > this day. Can all these things be said about Hinduism, Buddhism,
> > Judaism? Can any of these things be said about those 3 religions?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Musser"
> > <gladflyweather@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am an atheist, but I do not have any great antipathy to
religion,
> > in
> >> fact I am inclined to defend it because I believe religion is an
> >> inevitable reality for man, 2. I believe that Christianity is one
> > of
> >> the better options, 3. I believe it is possible to criticize
> >> Christianity without becoming obnoxious and giving atheists a bad
> > rap,
> >> 4. I believe atheists should criticize the worst manifestations
of
> > any
> >> religion and use the best in any religion to challenge its
> > believers.
> >>
> >> My intent is not to create any antagonism, only to reason with
> > those
> >> who find this topic of interest.  If we disagree, we can have a
> > good
> >> time trying to defend our positions.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - Release Date:
1/7/2009
> 5:59 PM
>

Below please:

----- Original Message -----
From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:52 AM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


>  The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
> committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we can
> trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times. Post
> Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian doctrinal
> support of slavery.

---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.

We see the same with the Christian zeal for
> colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse. We see
> witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.

---Where death to those who refuse?  Of course, I did not indicate there was
no violence, etc. after the Enlightenment.  Of course there was some.  There
is a problem:  many groups claim to be Christian, but were or are they
really?  The Klu Klux Klan:  was that a Christian organization?

> Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and subtley
> encourages violence against and repression of non Christians. To say
> it is less prevalent today is not a credit to Christian "diversity",
> it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our lives.

--Again you make the mistake of lumping all so-called Christian groups you
despise to include all Christianity:  composition fallacy.  The power of all
religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to fade, and
that's good.

> Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see the same
> behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
> allowed.

----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through some claim
of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit that.  The
quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though religion
has been the primary source.

>  There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
> insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other faiths or
> non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative Christian
> sects which try to square all this up, but most of their brtheren
> would say that are not Christian at all.

---Again fallacy of composition.  Christianity is on the way to reject
exclusivity.

Richard.
>

No I don't.  I don't think in terms of options and evaluating them.  I find
"truth" (not necessarily propositional truth) in all religions I have
studied.  I do find the mystical elements of Christianity and Buddhism the
most fruitful.  I strongly oppose all dogma and of course exclusivity.

Richard.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint" <n1n31nchn3rd@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


> Richard Godwin wrote:
>> Clint you are really surprising.  I suggest the hate is in your own mind.
>> I
>> gave a pretty complete explanation directly addressing the problem
>> suggested.  So why don't you offer some evidence of your assertion here!
>>
>> Richard.
>
> I read it. You defend it quite well. So you agree that christianity is
> the better option?
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009
6:05 PM

Now you-below please

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
wrote:
>
> Below please:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:52 AM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
>
>
> >  The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
> > committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we
can
> > trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times.
Post
> > Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian
doctrinal
> > support of slavery.
>
> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.

---Christianity is supposed to be a departure from bad ideas which
were "universally" supported. Actually, not a good example for them,
or your counterpoint. Christians claim a higher standard, then revert
to the staus quo for cover when it suits them. Women's Rights, Black
Civil Rights, Interracial Marraige, and now Gay Rights. Shouldn't the
Christian community have been behind these human rights 100%? I know
many Christians were supportive, but if they were adherents of Jesus
and not just admirers, it would have been all Christians, not just
some.
>
> We see the same with the Christian zeal for
> > colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse. We
see
> > witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
>
> ---Where death to those who refuse?  Of course, I did not indicate
there was
> no violence, etc. after the Enlightenment.  Of course there was
some.  There
> is a problem:  many groups claim to be Christian, but were or are
they
> really?  The Klu Klux Klan:  was that a Christian organization?

>>>>Many, many historical examples of "heathens" who were either
forced to convert or put to the sword. When that became out of vogue,
they were starved or given small-pox infected blankets like the
Native Americans from the 1860's-1890's. Today, our own Air Force is
corrupted by the undue influence of evangelicals. One high ranking
officer was quoted in Iraq as saying "I know my God is stronger than
their God." Really, really defective thinking. Now non evangelicals
are being harrassed at the Air Force Academy (google it). Is Iraq
current enough?
The Klan only allows Christians in its ranks, correct? They conflate
Christianity with White Supremacy using a twisted interpretation of
some Bronze Age scriptures. No they are not a Christian organization
per se.
>
> > Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and subtley
> > encourages violence against and repression of non Christians. To
say
> > it is less prevalent today is not a credit to
Christian "diversity",
> > it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our
lives.
>
> --Again you make the mistake of lumping all so-called Christian
groups you
> despise to include all Christianity:  composition fallacy.  The
power of all
> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to fade,
and
> that's good.

>>>My point needs to be clarified. I realize there are many open
minded Christians. I was raised a Methodist and was a practicing one.
I am nearly 50 years old. The trouble arises when the Church is given
political power and the activist evangelical wing gains the
influence, because they are more motivated. When they do, the open
minded Christians are influenced, brain washed, or pressured into
more extreme positions. We see this in many cases such as Nazi
Germany and China during the Cultural Revolution. Moderate,
reasonable people are controlled by a fanatical minority. This
fanatical minority is not subject to reason, and whether it be
National Socialism, Communism, or Christianity, it will soon lead to
extremism. Just look at the US Republican Party for a domestic
example, look at Israel, look at Palestine, Iran.
>
> > Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see the
same
> > behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
> > allowed.
>
> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through
some claim
> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit
that.  The
> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though
religion
> has been the primary source.

>>>>Not speculation. I am sure you are familiar with the tests
involving college students where one select group is given authority
over another, based on hair color or some other arbitrary
characteristic (like believing in the right god). The group in power
slowly but surely becomes oppressive and abusive towards the other.
It is human nature. The tribalism and exclusionary aspects of
Christianity especially bring this behavior out. Again, this is not
speculation, it is based on scientific fact.
    Further, we allow Christian Scientists to refuse their children
medical care in the interest of freedom of religion. Looks like The
State still has some work to do.
>
> >  There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
> > insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other faiths or
> > non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative
Christian
> > sects which try to square all this up, but most of their bretheren
> > would say that are not Christian at all.
>
> ---Again fallacy of composition.  Christianity is on the way to
reject
> exclusivity.

Now Richard, this statement seems like speculation to me. Why do you
say that? Is the Catholic Church ready for a merger with the Greek
Orthodox? Do we see fewer and fewer evangelical TV preachers,
collecting fewer and fewer dollars for new satellites and 737's?
Sarah Palin was just nominated for VP, for crying out loud. She is
maybe the most radical evangelical charismatic dispensationalist ever
to have run for VP or POTUS. These people never take a day off. They
will never be satisfied.
We need to call them out and be just as vigilant in protecting our
secular prerogatives. Apologizing for them is not helpful.
>
> Richard.
> >
>

Richard Godwin wrote:
> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.

That's an odd choice of words. I don't think the majority of the
population, who incidentally fell into slavery, supported it.

> The power of all
> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to fade, and
> that's good.

That's not what I read. In fact, islam is spreading like a disease. "New
age" religions as well as old religions like paganism and wicca for
example are growing as well. More and more religions are taking grip.
Seems to me christianity is the only one on the decline... in the US and
Europe.

> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through some claim
> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit that.  The
> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though religion
> has been the primary source.

The church doesn't rule like it used to here. It's influence is on the
decline. And need I remind you this is mainly just in America and
Europe. Religion still holds well in other nations. State end federal
laws prevent the church from basically doing much of anything nowadays.
That's why they now try to get into power through politics and public
teaching positions which they haven't held in a long time. In most other
nations, religious fanatics are still in those positions and is why
people like you claim that it's the fault of government or whatever and
not religion.

> Christianity is on the way to reject
> exclusivity.
>
> Richard.

Very little do I agree you. This is one of those rare moments you
actually state a true fact... well, statistically speaking anyway... lol.

Richard Godwin wrote:
> No I don't.  I don't think in terms of options and evaluating them.  I find
> "truth" (not necessarily propositional truth) in all religions I have
> studied.  I do find the mystical elements of Christianity and Buddhism the
> most fruitful.  I strongly oppose all dogma and of course exclusivity.
>
> Richard.


Fair enough, I suppose. I oppose religion as well but I think that for
the sake of the argument even I could pick out a religion that's better
suited than the others. It's just a simple question. By answering it,
doesn't mean you support religion. It's no different than if you'd
rather ride a bike and someone asks you what car looks better. Lighten
up, eh?

The only reason religion may be on the decline in Europe and the US
is that secular people, who believe in science, reason, and the law,
fought and died to re-make their governments. We broke the long
standing conspiracy between the church and the royalty with the last
major fight being in Russia with the Communist Revolution. The
Christian heirarchy did not simply give up their power and they seek
to have it restored someday, as they believe it is god's will. As
Mike Huckabee said on the campaign trail in 2008. "We need a
Constitution based on God's Law." That is their goal, make no
mistake.




--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Clint <n1n31nchn3rd@...>
wrote:
>
> Richard Godwin wrote:
> > ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.
>
> That's an odd choice of words. I don't think the majority of the
> population, who incidentally fell into slavery, supported it.
>
> > The power of all
> > religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to
fade, and
> > that's good.
>
> That's not what I read. In fact, islam is spreading like a
disease. "New
> age" religions as well as old religions like paganism and wicca for
> example are growing as well. More and more religions are taking
grip.
> Seems to me christianity is the only one on the decline... in the
US and
> Europe.
>
> > ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through
some claim
> > of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit
that.  The
> > quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though
religion
> > has been the primary source.
>
> The church doesn't rule like it used to here. It's influence is on
the
> decline. And need I remind you this is mainly just in America and
> Europe. Religion still holds well in other nations. State end
federal
> laws prevent the church from basically doing much of anything
nowadays.
> That's why they now try to get into power through politics and
public
> teaching positions which they haven't held in a long time. In most
other
> nations, religious fanatics are still in those positions and is why
> people like you claim that it's the fault of government or whatever
and
> not religion.
>
> > Christianity is on the way to reject
> > exclusivity.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> Very little do I agree you. This is one of those rare moments you
> actually state a true fact... well, statistically speaking
anyway... lol.
>

and again

----- Original Message -----
From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:25 PM
Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


> Now you-below please
>
> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Below please:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
>> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:52 AM
>> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
>>
>>
>> >  The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
>> > committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we
> can
>> > trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times.
> Post
>> > Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian
> doctrinal
>> > support of slavery.
>>
>> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.
>
> ---Christianity is supposed to be a departure from bad ideas which
> were "universally" supported. Actually, not a good example for them,
> or your counterpoint. Christians claim a higher standard, then revert
> to the staus quo for cover when it suits them. Women's Rights, Black
> Civil Rights, Interracial Marraige, and now Gay Rights. Shouldn't the
> Christian community have been behind these human rights 100%? I know
> many Christians were supportive, but if they were adherents of Jesus
> and not just admirers, it would have been all Christians, not just
> some.

====Where do you get your idea of "supposed to be"?  Where do your get your
idea of "from bad ideas"?--and where for universally supported?--and why
universally in quote marks?  What is the "higher standard"?--do you mean
morality, or salvation, or what?  What "status quo"?--do you mean "pagan
ways" or something like that?  Many Christians do support those rights etc.
What group of any sort ever has had such 100% unanimity?  Religions don't
work that way--all not just some, never have worked that way.  So would that
negate any value to religion?

>>
>> We see the same with the Christian zeal for
>> > colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse. We
> see
>> > witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
>>
>> ---Where death to those who refuse?  Of course, I did not indicate
> there was
>> no violence, etc. after the Enlightenment.  Of course there was
> some.  There
>> is a problem:  many groups claim to be Christian, but were or are
> they
>> really?  The Klu Klux Klan:  was that a Christian organization?
>
>>>>>Many, many historical examples of "heathens" who were either
> forced to convert or put to the sword. When that became out of vogue,
> they were starved or given small-pox infected blankets like the
> Native Americans from the 1860's-1890's. Today, our own Air Force is
> corrupted by the undue influence of evangelicals. One high ranking
> officer was quoted in Iraq as saying "I know my God is stronger than
> their God." Really, really defective thinking. Now non evangelicals
> are being harrassed at the Air Force Academy (google it). Is Iraq
> current enough?
> The Klan only allows Christians in its ranks, correct? They conflate
> Christianity with White Supremacy using a twisted interpretation of
> some Bronze Age scriptures. No they are not a Christian organization
> per se.

====Many, many forced conversions after Age of Enlightment:  for example?
You have no example?  Yes those Native Americans killed a lot of white eyes
who killed a lot of them.  Again, of course many groups use religion, like
Christianity, to support their bad activities.  You lump all Air Force into
those very few, as corrupted?  Harassment goes all ways, but hardly
indicative of a whole group. So what Bronze Age scriptures--none of the
Bible was composed before Persian or Hellenistic times, and that's after
Iron Age.

>>
>> > Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and subtley
>> > encourages violence against and repression of non Christians. To
> say
>> > it is less prevalent today is not a credit to
> Christian "diversity",
>> > it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our
> lives.
>>
>> --Again you make the mistake of lumping all so-called Christian
> groups you
>> despise to include all Christianity:  composition fallacy.  The
> power of all
>> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to fade,
> and
>> that's good.
>
>>>>My point needs to be clarified. I realize there are many open
> minded Christians. I was raised a Methodist and was a practicing one.
> I am nearly 50 years old. The trouble arises when the Church is given
> political power and the activist evangelical wing gains the
> influence, because they are more motivated. When they do, the open
> minded Christians are influenced, brain washed, or pressured into
> more extreme positions. We see this in many cases such as Nazi
> Germany and China during the Cultural Revolution. Moderate,
> reasonable people are controlled by a fanatical minority. This
> fanatical minority is not subject to reason, and whether it be
> National Socialism, Communism, or Christianity, it will soon lead to
> extremism. Just look at the US Republican Party for a domestic
> example, look at Israel, look at Palestine, Iran.

====Surely I agree that power corrupts.  I also agree to religious brain
washing and I abhor that too, especially when involving kids.  And I
certainly oppose extremism, which should be stamped out through education.
And on and on.

>>
>> > Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see the
> same
>> > behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
>> > allowed.
>>
>> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through
> some claim
>> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit
> that.  The
>> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though
> religion
>> has been the primary source.
>
>>>>>Not speculation. I am sure you are familiar with the tests
> involving college students where one select group is given authority
> over another, based on hair color or some other arbitrary
> characteristic (like believing in the right god). The group in power
> slowly but surely becomes oppressive and abusive towards the other.
> It is human nature. The tribalism and exclusionary aspects of
> Christianity especially bring this behavior out. Again, this is not
> speculation, it is based on scientific fact.
>   Further, we allow Christian Scientists to refuse their children
> medical care in the interest of freedom of religion. Looks like The
> State still has some work to do.

Yes I am familiar with those tests concerning authority--seems to be in
human nature.  I doubt Christianity is more liable to that.

>>
>> >  There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
>> > insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other faiths or
>> > non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative
> Christian
>> > sects which try to square all this up, but most of their bretheren
>> > would say that are not Christian at all.
>>
>> ---Again fallacy of composition.  Christianity is on the way to
> reject
>> exclusivity.
>
> Now Richard, this statement seems like speculation to me. Why do you
> say that? Is the Catholic Church ready for a merger with the Greek
> Orthodox? Do we see fewer and fewer evangelical TV preachers,
> collecting fewer and fewer dollars for new satellites and 737's?
> Sarah Palin was just nominated for VP, for crying out loud. She is
> maybe the most radical evangelical charismatic dispensationalist ever
> to have run for VP or POTUS. These people never take a day off. They
> will never be satisfied.
> We need to call them out and be just as vigilant in protecting our
> secular prerogatives. Apologizing for them is not helpful.

====Google Diana Eck at Harvard University and her Pluralism program, to get
interaction and cooperation among different religions and Christian sects.
As long as they can make millions of money, those televangelists will keep
going, and more will rise--a huge scam.  You are wrong in thinking I am
apologizing for bad Christians or of any other religion.  I'm just trying to
emphasize the facts and counter lumping some bad activities to all
activities.  I criticize religion about as much as any, and I side mostly
with Richand Dawkins, but I lean more to Dan Dennett, also an atheist.
Basically I argue against organized religion, but the problem is that
religion requires organization.
>>
>> Richard.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009
6:05 PM

and again
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint" <n1n31nchn3rd@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


> Richard Godwin wrote:
>> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.
>
> That's an odd choice of words. I don't think the majority of the
> population, who incidentally fell into slavery, supported it.

Ha, good point, never thought of that!  But probably not relevant.

>
>> The power of all
>> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to fade, and
>> that's good.
>
> That's not what I read. In fact, islam is spreading like a disease. "New
> age" religions as well as old religions like paganism and wicca for
> example are growing as well. More and more religions are taking grip.
> Seems to me christianity is the only one on the decline... in the US and
> Europe.

Yes, you're right about Islam.  Christianity is changing  and has been for
some time, abandoning Fundamentalist ideas.

>
>> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through some
>> claim
>> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit that.  The
>> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though religion
>> has been the primary source.
>
> The church doesn't rule like it used to here. It's influence is on the
> decline. And need I remind you this is mainly just in America and
> Europe. Religion still holds well in other nations. State end federal
> laws prevent the church from basically doing much of anything nowadays.
> That's why they now try to get into power through politics and public
> teaching positions which they haven't held in a long time. In most other
> nations, religious fanatics are still in those positions and is why
> people like you claim that it's the fault of government or whatever and
> not religion.

===People like me?  I never said anything like that anyway.  I am critical
of religion, not the government.
>
>> Christianity is on the way to reject
>> exclusivity.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> Very little do I agree you. This is one of those rare moments you
> actually state a true fact... well, statistically speaking anyway... lol.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009
6:05 PM

Here is an article that appeared recently in NY Times (good religion can be
good for you):

December 30, 2008
Findings

For Good Self-Control, Try Getting Religious About It

By JOHN TIERNEY

If I'm serious about keeping my New Year's resolutions in 2009, should I add
another one? Should the to-do list include, "Start going to church"?
This is an awkward question for a heathen to contemplate, but I felt obliged
to raise it with Michael McCullough after reading his report in the upcoming
issue of the Psychological Bulletin. He and a fellow psychologist at the
University of Miami, Brian Willoughby, have reviewed eight decades of
research and concluded that religious belief and piety promote self-control.

This sounded to me uncomfortably similar to the conclusion of the nuns who
taught me in grade school, but Dr. McCullough has no evangelical motives. He
confesses to not being much of a devotee himself. "When it comes to
religion," he said, "professionally, I'm a fan, but personally, I don't get
down on the field much."

His professional interest arose from a desire to understand why religion
evolved and why it seems to help so many people. Researchers around the
world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better
in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally
happier.
These results have been ascribed to the rules imposed on believers and to
the social support they receive from fellow worshipers, but these external
factors didn't account for all the benefits. In the new paper, the Miami
psychologists surveyed the literature to test the proposition that religion
gives people internal strength.
"We simply asked if there was good evidence that people who are more
religious have more self-control," Dr. McCullough. "For a long time it wasn't
cool for social scientists to study religion, but some researchers were
quietly chugging along for decades. When you add it all up, it turns out
there are remarkably consistent findings that religiosity correlates with
higher self-control."

As early as the 1920s, researchers found that students who spent more time
in Sunday school did better at laboratory tests measuring their
self-discipline. Subsequent studies showed that religiously devout children
were rated relatively low in impulsiveness by both parents and teachers, and
that religiosity repeatedly correlated with higher self-control among
adults. Devout people were found to be more likely than others to wear seat
belts, go to the dentist and take vitamins.
But which came first, the religious devotion or the self-control? It takes
self-discipline to sit through Sunday school or services at a temple or
mosque, so people who start out with low self-control are presumably less
likely to keep attending. But even after taking that self-selection bias
into account, Dr. McCullough said there is still reason to believe that
religion has a strong influence.

"Brain-scan studies have shown that when people pray or meditate, there's a
lot of activity in two parts of brain that are important for self-regulation
and control of attention and emotion," he said. "The rituals that religions
have been encouraging for thousands of years seem to be a kind of anaerobic
workout for self-control."
In a study published by the University of Maryland in 2003, students who
were subliminally exposed to religious words (like God, prayer or bible)
were slower to recognize words associated with temptations (like drugs or
premarital sex). Conversely, when they were primed with the temptation
words, they were quicker to recognize the religious words.

"It looks as if people come to associate religion with tamping down these
temptations," Dr. McCullough said. "When temptations cross their minds in
daily life, they quickly use religion to dispel them from their minds."

In one personality study, strongly religious people were compared with
people who subscribed to more general spiritual notions, like the idea that
their lives were "directed by a spiritual force greater than any human
  being" or that they felt "a spiritual connection to other people." The
religious people scored relatively high in conscientiousness and
self-control, whereas the spiritual people tended to score relatively low.

"Thinking about the oneness of humanity and the unity of nature doesn't seem
to be related to self-control," Dr. McCullough said. "The self-control
effect seems to come from being engaged in religious institutions and
behaviors."

Does this mean that nonbelievers like me should start going to church? Even
if you don't believe in a supernatural god, you could try improving your
self-control by at least going along with the rituals of organized religion.

But that probably wouldn't work either, Dr. McCullough told me, because
personality studies have identified a difference between true believers and
others who attend services for extrinsic reasons, like wanting to impress
people or make social connections. The intrinsically religious people have
higher self-control, but the extrinsically religious do not.

So what's a heathen to do in 2009? Dr. McCullough's advice is to try
replicating some of the religious mechanisms that seem to improve
self-control, like private meditation or public involvement with an
organization that has strong ideals.

Religious people, he said, are self-controlled not simply because they fear
God's wrath, but because they've absorbed the ideals of their religion into
their own system of values, and have thereby given their personal goals an
aura of sacredness. He suggested that nonbelievers try a secular version of
that strategy.
"People can have sacred values that aren't religious values," he said.
"Self-reliance might be a sacred value to you that's relevant to saving
money. Concern for others might be a sacred value that's relevant to taking
time to do volunteer work. You can spend time thinking about what values are
sacred to you and making New Year's resolutions that are consistent with
them."

Of course, it requires some self-control to carry out that exercise - and
maybe more effort than it takes to go to church.
"Sacred values come prefabricated for religious believers," Dr. McCullough
said. "The belief that God has preferences for how you behave and the goals
you set for yourself has to be the granddaddy of all psychological devices
for encouraging people to follow through with their goals. That may help to
explain why belief in God has been so persistent through the ages."




----- Original Message -----
From: "Clint" <n1n31nchn3rd@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction


> Richard Godwin wrote:
>> No I don't.  I don't think in terms of options and evaluating them.  I
>> find
>> "truth" (not necessarily propositional truth) in all religions I have
>> studied.  I do find the mystical elements of Christianity and Buddhism
>> the
>> most fruitful.  I strongly oppose all dogma and of course exclusivity.
>>
>> Richard.
>
>
> Fair enough, I suppose. I oppose religion as well but I think that for
> the sake of the argument even I could pick out a religion that's better
> suited than the others. It's just a simple question. By answering it,
> doesn't mean you support religion. It's no different than if you'd
> rather ride a bike and someone asks you what car looks better. Lighten
> up, eh?
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009
6:05 PM

Your orginal point, which spawned all of this dialogue, was that
Christianity was "one of the better options" and that atheists should
use the "best in any religion to challenge its believers". My
question is, and was originally, why is Christianity one of the
better options? For this assertion to be valid there must be some
special characteristics about it which make it "better" than other
religions as you implied. I am still waiting for an answer on that.
  I have tried to point out that Christianity is in fact one of the
worst options for several reasons.
1. Exclusivity-only the "saved" are worthy of god's mythical afterlife
2. Conversion-most Christians believe that all of us need to be
converted, and our souls are damned if we are not. This streak is not
common to all or most other faiths, and it allows adherents to see
non believers as less human, less worthy of compassion
3. The status of women in the Catholic Church especially, the
treatment of minorities until recent history, and the treatment of
gays even today, the treatment of children mentally (all) and
physically (too many)
    Again, I ask, what unique, paradigm changing, breakthrough
philosophy has Christianity given us which did not exist or could not
exist without its influence? Stack whatever that sliver is against
the profound evil which Christianity has been used to prop up, or
which the church itself is responsible for.

PS-the Air Force thing is no trivial matter. It goes to the top of
the organization and if you think having folks who believe in The End
Times in charge nuclear weapons (and eager to see the Rapture)is a
small matter, well you are entitled to your opinion.


--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...>
wrote:
>
> and again
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kschwiebert@..." <schwbert_98@...>
> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:25 PM
> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
>
>
> > Now you-below please
> >
> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Below please:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "kschwiebert@" <schwbert_98@>
> >> To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:52 AM
> >> Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Introduction
> >>
> >>
> >> >  The problem is that it is not just the Medieval Church who
> >> > committed all these crimes. As I described in my prior post, we
> > can
> >> > trace this violent streak all the way through to modern times.
> > Post
> >> > Enlightenment we witness the establishment of and Christian
> > doctrinal
> >> > support of slavery.
> >>
> >> ---Slavery was universally supported, not a good example for you.
> >
> > ---Christianity is supposed to be a departure from bad ideas which
> > were "universally" supported. Actually, not a good example for
them,
> > or your counterpoint. Christians claim a higher standard, then
revert
> > to the staus quo for cover when it suits them. Women's Rights,
Black
> > Civil Rights, Interracial Marraige, and now Gay Rights. Shouldn't
the
> > Christian community have been behind these human rights 100%? I
know
> > many Christians were supportive, but if they were adherents of
Jesus
> > and not just admirers, it would have been all Christians, not just
> > some.
>
> ====Where do you get your idea of "supposed to be"?  Where do your
get your
> idea of "from bad ideas"?--and where for universally supported?--
and why
> universally in quote marks?  What is the "higher standard"?--do you
mean
> morality, or salvation, or what?  What "status quo"?--do you
mean "pagan
> ways" or something like that?  Many Christians do support those
rights etc.
> What group of any sort ever has had such 100% unanimity?  Religions
don't
> work that way--all not just some, never have worked that way.  So
would that
> negate any value to religion?
>
> >>
> >> We see the same with the Christian zeal for
> >> > colonialism, forced conversion, and death to those who refuse.
We
> > see
> >> > witch trials in the 1600's and burning crosses in the 1960's.
> >>
> >> ---Where death to those who refuse?  Of course, I did not
indicate
> > there was
> >> no violence, etc. after the Enlightenment.  Of course there was
> > some.  There
> >> is a problem:  many groups claim to be Christian, but were or are
> > they
> >> really?  The Klu Klux Klan:  was that a Christian organization?
> >
> >>>>>Many, many historical examples of "heathens" who were either
> > forced to convert or put to the sword. When that became out of
vogue,
> > they were starved or given small-pox infected blankets like the
> > Native Americans from the 1860's-1890's. Today, our own Air Force
is
> > corrupted by the undue influence of evangelicals. One high ranking
> > officer was quoted in Iraq as saying "I know my God is stronger
than
> > their God." Really, really defective thinking. Now non
evangelicals
> > are being harrassed at the Air Force Academy (google it). Is Iraq
> > current enough?
> > The Klan only allows Christians in its ranks, correct? They
conflate
> > Christianity with White Supremacy using a twisted interpretation
of
> > some Bronze Age scriptures. No they are not a Christian
organization
> > per se.
>
> ====Many, many forced conversions after Age of Enlightment:  for
example?
> You have no example?  Yes those Native Americans killed a lot of
white eyes
> who killed a lot of them.  Again, of course many groups use
religion, like
> Christianity, to support their bad activities.  You lump all Air
Force into
> those very few, as corrupted?  Harassment goes all ways, but hardly
> indicative of a whole group. So what Bronze Age scriptures--none of
the
> Bible was composed before Persian or Hellenistic times, and that's
after
> Iron Age.
>
> >>
> >> > Christianity has developed a malignancy which permits and
subtley
> >> > encourages violence against and repression of non Christians.
To
> > say
> >> > it is less prevalent today is not a credit to
> > Christian "diversity",
> >> > it is a credit to those who sought to limit its power over our
> > lives.
> >>
> >> --Again you make the mistake of lumping all so-called Christian
> > groups you
> >> despise to include all Christianity:  composition fallacy.  The
> > power of all
> >> religions has been fading over recent times, and continues to
fade,
> > and
> >> that's good.
> >
> >>>>My point needs to be clarified. I realize there are many open
> > minded Christians. I was raised a Methodist and was a practicing
one.
> > I am nearly 50 years old. The trouble arises when the Church is
given
> > political power and the activist evangelical wing gains the
> > influence, because they are more motivated. When they do, the open
> > minded Christians are influenced, brain washed, or pressured into
> > more extreme positions. We see this in many cases such as Nazi
> > Germany and China during the Cultural Revolution. Moderate,
> > reasonable people are controlled by a fanatical minority. This
> > fanatical minority is not subject to reason, and whether it be
> > National Socialism, Communism, or Christianity, it will soon lead
to
> > extremism. Just look at the US Republican Party for a domestic
> > example, look at Israel, look at Palestine, Iran.
>
> ====Surely I agree that power corrupts.  I also agree to religious
brain
> washing and I abhor that too, especially when involving kids.  And
I
> certainly oppose extremism, which should be stamped out through
education.
> And on and on.
>
> >>
> >> > Were the church's former powers restored we would surely see
the
> > same
> >> > behavior, and we do, in fact, in communities where it still is
> >> > allowed.
> >>
> >> ----Pure speculation. But yes, for those who harm others through
> > some claim
> >> of any religion, we have the laws of the State which prohibit
> > that.  The
> >> quest for power over others is not only in religion, even though
> > religion
> >> has been the primary source.
> >
> >>>>>Not speculation. I am sure you are familiar with the tests
> > involving college students where one select group is given
authority
> > over another, based on hair color or some other arbitrary
> > characteristic (like believing in the right god). The group in
power
> > slowly but surely becomes oppressive and abusive towards the
other.
> > It is human nature. The tribalism and exclusionary aspects of
> > Christianity especially bring this behavior out. Again, this is
not
> > speculation, it is based on scientific fact.
> >   Further, we allow Christian Scientists to refuse their children
> > medical care in the interest of freedom of religion. Looks like
The
> > State still has some work to do.
>
> Yes I am familiar with those tests concerning authority--seems to
be in
> human nature.  I doubt Christianity is more liable to that.
>
> >>
> >> >  There is no such thing a "universal love" in a religion that
> >> > insists on its being right to the exclusion of all other
faiths or
> >> > non believers. It can not be. There may be some derivative
> > Christian
> >> > sects which try to square all this up, but most of their
bretheren
> >> > would say that are not Christian at all.
> >>
> >> ---Again fallacy of composition.  Christianity is on the way to
> > reject
> >> exclusivity.
> >
> > Now Richard, this statement seems like speculation to me. Why do
you
> > say that? Is the Catholic Church ready for a merger with the Greek
> > Orthodox? Do we see fewer and fewer evangelical TV preachers,
> > collecting fewer and fewer dollars for new satellites and 737's?
> > Sarah Palin was just nominated for VP, for crying out loud. She is
> > maybe the most radical evangelical charismatic dispensationalist
ever
> > to have run for VP or POTUS. These people never take a day off.
They
> > will never be satisfied.
> > We need to call them out and be just as vigilant in protecting our
> > secular prerogatives. Apologizing for them is not helpful.
>
> ====Google Diana Eck at Harvard University and her Pluralism
program, to get
> interaction and cooperation among different religions and Christian
sects.
> As long as they can make millions of money, those televangelists
will keep
> going, and more will rise--a huge scam.  You are wrong in thinking
I am
> apologizing for bad Christians or of any other religion.  I'm just
trying to
> emphasize the facts and counter lumping some bad activities to all
> activities.  I criticize religion about as much as any, and I side
mostly
> with Richand Dawkins, but I lean more to Dan Dennett, also an
atheist.
> Basically I argue against organized religion, but the problem is
that
> religion requires organization.
> >>
> >> Richard.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date:
1/8/2009
> 6:05 PM
>

Maybe, you will pay a little more attention to the opinion of an agnostic who
has written a ten volume study of civilization.   Will Durant in his  Lessons of
History wrote
 
 
Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he
sees it functioning and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age.   To the
unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought supernatural
comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious than any natural aid.  It
has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young.  It has conferred
meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence and through its sacraments has
made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships
with God.   It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich.  For
since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or defeat, some
supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair.  Destroy that hope,
and class war is intensified.  Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well: when one
goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism grows.  P. 43
 
Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with morals.  
Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who echoed
Lucretius) “it was fear that first made the gods” 25—fear of hidden forces in
the earth.  Religion became the propitiatory worship of these forces through
offerings, sacrifice, incantation, and prayer.  Only when priests used these
fears and rituals to support morality and law did religion become a force vital
and rival to the state.  It told the people that the local code of morals and
laws had been dictated by the gods.  It pictured the god Thoth giving laws to
Menes for Egypt, Shamash giving Hammurabi a code for Babylonia, Yahveh giving
the Ten Commandments and 613 precepts to Moses for the Jews, and the divine
nymph Egeria giving Numa Pompilius laws fro Rome.  Pagan cults and Christian
creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were appointed and protected by the
gods.   Gratefully, nearly ever
  state shared its lands and revenues with the priests.  P 43-4
 
Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality, since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination.  Certainly
sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and violence
existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political
disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming,
unifying ritual.  The Roman Catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family
feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to
replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts.  It
softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded
the scope and organization of charity.p. 44
 
In regard to his statement about religion and utopias, he suggests that when
religion wains, men look to utopia ideas, e.g., communisim.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Jack Musser
<gladflyweather@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe, you will pay a little more attention to the opinion of an
> agnostic who has written a ten volume study of civilization.   Will
> Durant in his  Lessons of History wrote

I don't particularly care for arguments from authority.

>
> Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion,
> since he sees it functioning and seemingly indispensable, in every
> land and age.

Except that it is less functioning and less indispensable in this age,
the one with the best morality.

> To the unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought
> supernatural comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious
> than any natural aid.

False hope is not something our society needs.

> It has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young.

By giving them psychological scars for the rest of their lives.

> It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich.

The modern welfare state can do that too.

> For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty
> or defeat, some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to
> despair.

This actually has a point, there is a negative correlation between
socio-economic state and religiosity and it is the rich western
democracies that have the highest rate of voluntary atheism.

But, that doesn't mean that we need religion, just that we need a way
to get people out of poverty.

> Destroy that hope, and class war is intensified.  Heaven and utopia
> are buckets in a well: when one goes down the other goes up; when
> religion declines Communism grows.  P. 43

Communism is dead and will not be reappearing no matter what happens
to religion.  Besides, those western democracies with a lot of
atheists don't look very communist to me (they do tend to be strong
welfare states but they are all capitalist).

> Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with
> morals.

Yes it does, that of opposition.

> Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who
> echoed Lucretius) "it was fear that first made the gods" 25—fear of
> hidden forces in the earth.  Religion became the propitiatory
> worship of these forces through offerings, sacrifice, incantation,
> and prayer.  Only when priests used these fears and rituals to
> support morality and law did religion become a force vital and rival
> to the state.

So stoning children for disobedience is moral and the force that
demands it vital?  Didn't think so.

> It told the people that the local code of morals and laws had been
> dictated by the gods.

Which make them very hard to change if they are wrong (which the
morality of pretty much every religion is).

Humanism is far superior to religion as a source of morality, so much
so that most religious people actually get their morality from it
instead of their religion.

> Pagan cults and Christian creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were
> appointed and protected by the gods.

Ah yes, the divine right of kings, personally I'm glad that democracy
has replaced it.

In my opinion the biggest contribution the US made to the world was to
be the first secular democracy (even the ancient Greek democracies had
a state religion and deity overseeing them and would kill people they
thought didn't think that deity existed).

> Gratefully, nearly ever  state shared its lands and revenues with
> the priests.  P 43-4

It's sad that this is still happening.

> Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality,
> since immorality has flourished even in ages of religious
> domination.

Flourished is a bit of an understatement.

> Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty,
> robbery, and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the
> moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war,
> economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been
> much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic,
> priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying
> ritual.

It was more likely that Christianity made things worse, after all, it
was the church that said tyrants were divinely appointed.

> In regard to his statement about religion and utopias, he suggests
> that when religion wains, men look to utopia ideas, e.g.,
> communisim.

Actually it seems that religion waning is caused by improvements in
living conditions.

Communism really isn't as different to religion as is often thought
and is a good example of why the ultimate problem with religion isn't
theism, but faith (which communists, even if atheists, have plenty of).

  I agree with the writer. Religion has also provided a sense of community and
fellowship which is hard to replace with some other system. I think many
worshipers may be agnostic or even atheist but they get some comfort and
satisfaction from being part of a greater whole. Communism was an attempt to
replace the church with the state. To replace worship of an abstract god with an
abstract idea. I do not agree that without some theistic organized religion we
are stuck with the only option being communism. In Japan for example we have
something like an ancestor cult. There is no god, in the western sense, but the
system provides the same benefits as western religions do, without most of the
negatives. That system was corrupted too, in the 1930's-40's, so it has its own
weaknesses, but it lacks the exclusion, one-upsmanship, threats of hell and
damnation, and dehumanization of non believers that western religions have.
 
Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.-Religion is regarded by the common
      people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Napoleon Bonaparte-Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people
      Quiet.
      H. L. Mencken-I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a
curse
      to mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the
      ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to
      clear and honest thinking.
 
      Thomas Jefferson, 1823-The day will come when the mystical generation of
      Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
      brain of Jupiter.
 
      Benito Il DUCA Mussolini-Religion is man-made to assist in controlling the
      weak minded individuals because during times of atrocity and despair they
      feel strength in numbers.
      Napolean Bonaparte-There must be Religion. Otherwise the poor would murder
      the rich.
John Kelly Ireland-God is my shepherd: - Only sheep need a shepherd.



--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:

From: Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...>
Subject: [Death To Religion] (unknown)
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 11:51 AM

Maybe, you will pay a little more attention to the opinion of an agnostic who
has written a ten volume study of civilization.   Will Durant in his  Lessons
of History wrote
 
 
Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he
sees it functioning and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age.   To
the unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought supernatural
comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious than any natural aid.  It
has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young.  It has conferred
meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence and through its sacraments has
made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships
with God.   It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich. 
For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or defeat,
some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair.  Destroy that
hope, and class war is intensified.  Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well:
when one goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism grows. 
P. 43
 
Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with morals.  
Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who echoed
Lucretius) “it was fear that first made the gods” 25—fear of hidden forces
in the earth.  Religion became the propitiatory worship of these forces through
offerings, sacrifice, incantation, and prayer.  Only when priests used these
fears and rituals to support morality and law did religion become a force vital
and rival to the state.  It told the people that the local code of morals and
laws had been dictated by the gods.  It pictured the god Thoth giving laws to
Menes for Egypt, Shamash giving Hammurabi a code for Babylonia, Yahveh giving
the Ten Commandments and 613 precepts to Moses for the Jews, and the divine
nymph Egeria giving Numa Pompilius laws fro Rome.  Pagan cults and Christian
creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were appointed and protected by the
gods.   Gratefully, nearly ever
  state shared its lands and revenues with the priests.  P 43-4
 
Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality, since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination.  Certainly
sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and violence
existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political
disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming,
unifying ritual.  The Roman Catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family
feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to
replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts.  It
softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded
the scope and organization of charity.p. 44
 
In regard to his statement about religion and utopias, he suggests that when
religion wains, men look to utopia ideas, e.g., communisim.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mr. Durant's book was published in 1968. He died in 1981 at the ripe age of 96.
I wonder what he would say about those religious fanatics who seek to hasten the
end of the world. He did not live long enough to witness the rise of
fundamentalists in Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. These people present a clear
and present danger to all of us. Since he is not here to comment, I would like
to know what you think. If these people are stopped, will it be moderates in
their own faiths who do it?
A discouraging example was the cartoonist in Holland who had his life threatened
over the Mohammed political satire. Christian churches were either silent or
sympathetic to offended Muslims.



--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:

From: Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...>
Subject: [Death To Religion] (unknown)
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 11:51 AM

Maybe, you will pay a little more attention to the opinion of an agnostic who
has written a ten volume study of civilization.   Will Durant in his  Lessons
of History wrote
 
 
Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he
sees it functioning and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age.   To
the unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought supernatural
comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious than any natural aid.  It
has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young.  It has conferred
meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence and through its sacraments has
made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships
with God.   It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich. 
For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or defeat,
some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair.  Destroy that
hope, and class war is intensified.  Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well:
when one goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism grows. 
P. 43
 
Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with morals.  
Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who echoed
Lucretius) “it was fear that first made the gods” 25—fear of hidden forces
in the earth.  Religion became the propitiatory worship of these forces through
offerings, sacrifice, incantation, and prayer.  Only when priests used these
fears and rituals to support morality and law did religion become a force vital
and rival to the state.  It told the people that the local code of morals and
laws had been dictated by the gods.  It pictured the god Thoth giving laws to
Menes for Egypt, Shamash giving Hammurabi a code for Babylonia, Yahveh giving
the Ten Commandments and 613 precepts to Moses for the Jews, and the divine
nymph Egeria giving Numa Pompilius laws fro Rome.  Pagan cults and Christian
creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were appointed and protected by the
gods.   Gratefully, nearly ever
  state shared its lands and revenues with the priests.  P 43-4
 
Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality, since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination.  Certainly
sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and violence
existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political
disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming,
unifying ritual.  The Roman Catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family
feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to
replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts.  It
softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded
the scope and organization of charity.p. 44
 
In regard to his statement about religion and utopias, he suggests that when
religion wains, men look to utopia ideas, e.g., communisim.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And as Napoleon said:  "Napoleon, 'god always fights on the side of the
bigger battalions'."

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "KIRK SCHWIEBERT" <schwbert_98@...>
To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] (unknown)


I agree with the writer. Religion has also provided a sense of community and
fellowship which is hard to replace with some other system. I think many
worshipers may be agnostic or even atheist but they get some comfort and
satisfaction from being part of a greater whole. Communism was an attempt to
replace the church with the state. To replace worship of an abstract god
with an abstract idea. I do not agree that without some theistic organized
religion we are stuck with the only option being communism. In Japan for
example we have something like an ancestor cult. There is no god, in the
western sense, but the system provides the same benefits as western
religions do, without most of the negatives. That system was corrupted too,
in the 1930's-40's, so it has its own weaknesses, but it lacks the
exclusion, one-upsmanship, threats of hell and damnation, and dehumanization
of non believers that western religions have.

Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.-Religion is regarded by the common
people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Napoleon Bonaparte-Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people
Quiet.
H. L. Mencken-I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse
to mankind--that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the
ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to
clear and honest thinking.

Thomas Jefferson, 1823-The day will come when the mystical generation of
Jesus.will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
brain of Jupiter.

Benito Il DUCA Mussolini-Religion is man-made to assist in controlling the
weak minded individuals because during times of atrocity and despair they
feel strength in numbers.
Napolean Bonaparte-There must be Religion. Otherwise the poor would murder
the rich.
John Kelly Ireland-God is my shepherd: - Only sheep need a shepherd.



--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...> wrote:

From: Jack Musser <gladflyweather@...>
Subject: [Death To Religion] (unknown)
To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 11:51 AM

Maybe, you will pay a little more attention to the opinion of an agnostic
who
has written a ten volume study of civilization. Will Durant in his Lessons
of History wrote


Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since
he
sees it functioning and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age. To
the unhappy, the suffering, the bereaved, the old, it has brought
supernatural
comforts valued by millions of souls as more precious than any natural aid.
It
has helped parents and teachers to discipline the young. It has conferred
meaning and dignity upon the lowliest existence and through its sacraments
has
made for stability by transforming human covenants into solemn relationships
with God. It has kept the poor (said Napoleon) from murdering the rich.
For since the natural inequality of men dooms many of us to poverty or
defeat,
some supernatural hope may be the sole alternative to despair. Destroy that
hope, and class war is intensified. Heaven and utopia are buckets in a well:
when one goes down the other goes up; when religion declines Communism
grows.
P. 43

Religion does not seem at first to have had any connection with morals.
Apparently (for we are merely guessing, or echoing Petronius, who echoed
Lucretius) "it was fear that first made the gods" 25-fear of hidden forces
in the earth. Religion became the propitiatory worship of these forces
through
offerings, sacrifice, incantation, and prayer. Only when priests used these
fears and rituals to support morality and law did religion become a force
vital
and rival to the state. It told the people that the local code of morals and
laws had been dictated by the gods. It pictured the god Thoth giving laws to
Menes for Egypt, Shamash giving Hammurabi a code for Babylonia, Yahveh
giving
the Ten Commandments and 613 precepts to Moses for the Jews, and the divine
nymph Egeria giving Numa Pompilius laws fro Rome. Pagan cults and Christian
creeds proclaimed that earthly rulers were appointed and protected by the
gods. Gratefully, nearly ever
  state shared its lands and revenues with the priests. P 43-4

Some recusants have doubted that religion ever promoted morality, since
immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination. Certainly
sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery, and
violence
existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a
millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political
disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of
the
Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming,
unifying ritual. The Roman Catholic Church labored to reduce slavery, family
feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and
to
replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts.
It
softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly
expanded
the scope and organization of charity.p. 44

In regard to his statement about religion and utopias, he suggests that when
religion wains, men look to utopia ideas, e.g., communisim.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1886 - Release Date: 1/10/2009
6:01 PM

The basic problem is that criticism of religion has become something
of a taboo in our society to the point at which even mild criticism is
considered obnoxious.
I wouldn't expect the regular theists in here to do any of that but
there are a lot of religious people in the real world who take offence
at even mild criticisms.
 
 
That has been a problem in our society and we need to change that.  However, we
are not going to change that if a lot of vocal atheists make assinine comments
like people are weak who need an imaginary friend, or attempt to make a big
issue out of the historisity of Jesus.  (How many believers do you think are
going to be convinced that Jesus never existed because there is no birth
certificate, etc?)
 
If we criticize religion on legitimately significant terms, we will have a whole
number of Christians agree.   The religious right has not been immune to the
critiques of other Christians.   If we make it sound as if we want to take their
rights away just as they have tried to take our rights away, we will lose the
battle.
 
Far better for us to criticize Christians for trying to impose their beliefs on
us through government.  We can acknowledge their right not to recognize gay
marriage in their churchs while insisting they have no right to deny human
rights to citizens of the United States.  We can recognize their right to
discourage women from having an abortion by once again insisting that this
believe which is not held by half of our population, should not become the law
of the land.   Christians need to take personal responsibility for their beliefs
and not use the government as their personal agency.
 
Atheists have chosen really bad battle grounds, alienating a large swath of the
public for issues that just are not that significant.   The bus signs are a good
example of an absurd afront to religion.   Far better to have advertised that a
belief in god is not required to be a  good citizen or to be given the rights of
a democracy.  Telling the public that atheists are better off because they can
sleep in on Sundays is about as stupid a comment as I can imagine for anyone who
wants to get respect.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kirk wrote,  What exactly makes Christianity one of the better options? It has,
over its 2000 year existence, pursued murder, warfare, and genocide
to impose its beliefs on others. It has, and continues to in many
circles, subjucated women. It has, and continues to in most of its
derivatives, mentally abused small children with fairy tales about
going to hell for simply having "impure" thoughts. In some cases it
has sanctioned and protected the physical abuse of children, even to
this day. Can all these things be said about Hinduism, Buddhism,
Judaism? Can any of these things be said about those 3 religions?


Whenever these religions have capture the government they have become
disastrous.   Look at the Romans with their wonderful polytheism.   They sent
Christians into the lion's den or worse, set them on fire for a spectacle.  We
often hear how wonderfully accepting the Romans were of other gods!!!!  No way.

Christianity provided its own agent of criticism, the image of Christ.  
Christianity which was born in an age of barbarism, was slowly able to transform
itself in a society that got rid of a great deal of the barbarism inherent in
man's nature.  It also, even though not perfect in its support of science, was
the only society that fostered science and enabled science to fulfill some of
its greatest potentials.   No other society, not even communism, has been as
fruitful a seedbed for science.  Rome had centuries to develop the gifts of
Greece, and they did little.  Islam had a holiday for science but quickly
discouraged the pursuit of knowledge.

We are a world apart from 14th century Christianity and will be even more so in
the future.    Let's concentrate on the actual problems we have with
Christianity rather than tilting at the windmills of religion.   Religion has
always been a character of society, sometimes kept well in its place and some
times  allowed to become the actually government.  Separation of church and
state is best for the government and for religion.

What we need is intelligent criticism, not hate bating criticism.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Richard wrote, Throughout history State religions have caused these kinds of
problems. Eastern
religions have not been so inclined, and Islam has a long history of resistance
to unification of religion with the State, based on recognition of abuses at
times of such unification in their history.


I am certainly no authority on Islam, but I have certainly been under the
impression that it quite often became the government, and even when it did
not it managed to impose some pretty harsh punishments on heresy.     We do not
worry so much about Turkey, but Iran is an entirely different matter.  Saudi
Arabia, Afganastan, Iraq, Palestine, and others have been or are countries in
which Islam has been little tamed by secular governments.  Islam has no figure
as inspiring to peace as does Christianity.  Mohammed was a fierce warrior. 
Christ was not.
 
The fact is that Christianity is a dominant religion in the West, and it is
naive and ridiculous to attack it as if you wanted to get rid of it.  It has a
history of improving and this is what we should be concentrating on.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am afraid that too many atheists are returning minimal hate with maximum
hate.  Therre is a very vocal minority of Christians who have wormed their way
into the corridors of power and have had some very bad influences on our
government.   However, there is a promise in this last election that this power
will be diminished.

I am sorry if I have little sympathy with those who cannot tolerate sitting
through a prayer or a minute of silence.  The need to impose such intensely
negative changes on the government through legal challenges has reaped what
anyone with intelligence would have expected.   We are setting up a "us against
them" rather than a sense that we can all work together.   If we have a dozen
vocal atheists making us all look dispicable, then we are not going to make the
necessary inroads on respect that will get atheists elected to office.  I'd
rather see an atheist elected than a copy of the ten commandments thrown out of
the court house.

Easedrop on a few atheist internet sites if you want to see how obnoxious
atheists can be, and since there are so few of us that are visible, we get a bad
rap for who we are.  Can you imagine what woud happen to Jews, Muslims, and
Buddhists if they were as obnoxious as we have been in trying to undermine
Christianity?  I thought that part of our democracy was tolerating religion, not
attempting to destroy it.

I am for change, not destruction.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty,
> robbery, and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the
> moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war,
> economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been
> much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic,
> priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying
> ritual.

It was more likely that Christianity made things worse, after all, it
was the church that said tyrants were divinely appointed.
 
Kirk, Have you actually compared Christian societies to others.  Do you think
the Romans were better before Christianity.   Do you think the barbarians were
better before Christianity?  Do you think that pre-hebraic societies were better
than the Jewish?  Nazism and Communism were pitiless.  Islam is gross in its
morality.   Hinduism leaves much to be desired.  I know little about Buddhism.  
Christianity, because of its image of Jesus and a loving god, has steady
improved.   There is much in it to be critical of.   The question is whether it
deserves the wholesale condemnation that you espouse.   Slavery was defended by
old testament Christianity, but it was the liberal Christians who rallied
against it far more forceably than the seculars.  What are the great crimes of
Christianity today: it's conversative (not liberal) stance against abortion,
homosexuality, stem cell research, . . .  You has as many allies in the
churches if not
  more than you have in the secular crowd fighting against these policies.

Again, let me make it clear, I am not encouraging religion, I am merely saying
the full frontal assault is a big mistake.  Atheists are alienating some of
their best support by making no distinctions about what Christianity is today
and what it once was when it was the government.   Many Christians support
separation of church and state, but do not support angry, hateful attacks.

What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]