Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Thecla]

In the same way, I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence.

So you're estimating that roughly 160 million Muslims round the world do condone terrorist violence?

For Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the media, and the attention is paid to the most outrageous ones.

Speaking of which:

It may be a blessing in disguise. ... Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyqu...atrobertson.htm ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

So you're estimating that roughly 160 million Muslims round the world do condone terrorist violence?

I have no idea of the actual number, but I do remember the film clips on September 12, 2001. If you were watching, you probably remember them too. The ones with common, everyday Muslims dancing in the streets because Americans were killed. So, I don't know how many have gone through a terrorist training camp, or are members in terrorist groups, or are willing financial contributors to those groups. But the number that *condone* terrorist violence? I suspect that 10% may be extremely low.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Speaking of which:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyqu...atrobertson.htm ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7EWf6X4Mds...feature=related

Pat Robertson is a turd and I hope he gets ass cancer. Painful ass cancer. He pulled the same crap after Katrina too.

I was once idly flipping through channels when the whole Mars rover thing was going on, and came upon Pat Robertson talking about how NASA should be disbanded because it focuses peoples' attention on outer space too much, which according to him was contrary to the first 2 commandments. You see, NASA makes people worship outer space, and we all know that outer space is a false god. Therefore NASA is doing the devil's work and should be disbanded.

[kandrathe]

I'm not quite sure what to distill from this. On one hand, you seem to be arguing for a kind of social majoritarianism, with religious agreement at its base, but on the other, you are acknowledging the importance of liberty, protecting individuals from exactly that "social cohesion." Just because a solution to a social problem could be found by just legislating peoples' religious prejudices, doesn't mean it should be. Indeed, the most admirable part of the US Constitution, to my mind, is in rejecting exactly that method.

I'm not arguing for pure social "democracy", however, in some regards (when justice fails) that is what we have. I agree that the protection of the rights of minorities is an important part (a desirable part) of the US Constitution. However, I think the US government has gone too far sometimes in giving preference to the previously disadvantaged. Justice demands reparation to the individuals harmed (not classes), and the achievement of equal opportunity. Injustice is using the power of government to continuously make everyone equal (socialism). Individuals (and corporations) should be free to experience the full fruits of their success or suffer the trials of their failures.

I can't say I find it even slightly true that Christianity makes for coherent, peaceful societies. The evidence just doesn't stack up. Religious countries are not less violent than non-religious ones. Non-religious people are not less generous - there are atheists in soup kitchens just the same as everyone else. Wars between Christian nations, even ones that share a denomination, are legion throughout history. Bitter civil conflicts over religious interpretation have torn whole societies apart. To give just one example, Ireland has had its share of treating each other like "brothers" - when the whole society descended into decades of fratricide.

Again, I would first question whether the people were practicing their espoused religion, or whether the conflict were about some territorial disagreement, a claim for self rule, or some other common dispute. There is no such thing as a Christian nation, unless they are a theocracy. Even under the monarchies of Europe, the practice of Christianity by monarchs was highly in question.

Meanwhile, the collapse of religious belief has not led to any particularly negative consequences - those societies who believe least are among the most equal, prosperous, peaceful and coherent societies in the world. If religion is the best solution, then why aren't Japan, Sweden, or Uruguay descending into a morass of amorality? Why are super-religious Nigeria or Brazil very violent countries, when they should be able to lean on religion to help out? I know my answer - it doesn't work. Social coherence comes from elsewhere.

I would disagree, of course. It is only reasonable to expect moral decay in the wake of any organized social structure upholding societal mores. Which is one reason that our prisons are overflowing.

Any religion composed of two billion people is going to be complicated, and you're right, it's not fair to simply look at the negative side of it, when there are also positives. But you equally can't throw the negatives overboard by simply defining them out of the argument. If Christians (as a whole, not necessarily individually) fail to live up to their supposed obligations, time and time again, then how reasonable is it to make the argument that Christianity is this wonderful creed that causes peace, goodwill and social cohesion? That's just an idealized fantasy, from where I sit.

It is human nature to fail to aspire to our full potential, however, I uphold those social organizations that attempt to bring out the best of human nature and attempt to mold us into people of good character. Rather than idealism, I would probably use the term optimism. I think one problem that Christianity has is that it is taught by morons like Pat Robertson. Your and my objection to ancient to modern Catholicism is its dumbing it down and spoon feeding the pablum of dogma to the masses, while exacting perfect obedience. Atheism also has its embarrassments. But, I'll end with; "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson

Edit: adding this link to the moral regeneration movement in South Africa began by Nelson Mandela -- http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/CrimeQ/No.11/Rauch.htm
and this link of EU violent crime rates -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html
and <blockquote>"Results from a series of multilevel analyses indicate that church attendance (the frequency of attending religious services) has significant inverse effects on nondrug illegal activities, drug use, and drug selling among disadvantaged youths. Religious salience (the perceived importance of religion in one's life), however, is not significantly linked to reductions in juvenile delinquency. We discuss the implications of our findings, focusing on individual religiosity as a potentially important protective factor for disadvantaged youths. "-- http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~d...tent=a718869822</blockquote> and <blockquote>"Our research attempts to resolve these issues by testing the religion-crime relationship in models with a comprehensive crime measure and three separate dimensions of religiosity. We also control for secular constraints, religious networks, and social ecology. We found that, among our religiosity measures, participation in religious activities was a persistent and noncontingent inhibiter of adult crime." --RELIGION AND CRIME REEXAMINED: THE IMPACT OF RELIGION, SECULAR CONTROLS, AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY ON ADULT CRIMINALITY</blockquote>Also, I should point out, I'm not only speaking of "religion", but of any social construct that one religiously adheres to which diverts "idle hands" towards constructive social contributions. So, yes, atheists can do this too. The quality here is not what you claim to be, but what do you actually do. Jails are filled with people who will claim to be Christian, but do not attend church or know the basic tenets of the faith. An entirely secular positive youth group, like say 4H might keep kids out of trouble as well. But, somewhere, the child needs to be imprinted with societal norms and mores.

[Jester]

Also, I should point out, I'm not only speaking of "religion", but of any social construct that one religiously adheres to which diverts "idle hands" towards constructive social contributions. So, yes, atheists can do this too.

...

But, somewhere, the child needs to be imprinted with societal norms and mores.

The studies you linked, and the general consensus, as far as I know, is that religious belief per se has little to no impact on criminality. That correlates almost entirely with social activities. Get your kid in the band program. Put on a play. Join the Boy Scouts - although maybe not in the US. The social benefits will accrue all the same. The religious component is vestigial, and therefore, this is not a good argument for the benefits of religion.

From your EU crime statistics, I'm not sure what you want to prove there. The UK tops the list for Europe, but well below it are some of the most atheistic societies in the world, including France, and Sweden, both of which are so disbelieving they make the UK look fanatically religious. Where's the correlation, let alone the causation?

-Jester

[Thecla]

Individuals (and corporations) should be free to experience the full fruits of their success or suffer the trials of their failures.

So the government providing people with food stamps is "socialism," while feeding people in a church soup kitchen is "charity"?

There is no such thing as a Christian nation, unless they are a theocracy.

I doubt that any theocracy (on this earth, anyway) would life up to your definitions of a "truly" christian nation -- any nation based on a specific ideology, religious or otherwise, is not likely to be a tolerant one.

Which is one reason that our prisons are overflowing

Seems odd to suggest this given that the US has an extremely high level of religious belief and very full prisons while western europe has a lower level of religious belief and less crowded prisons. But I do agree with you that people who are engage in a social structure of one form or another are less likely to commit crimes.

[kandrathe]

So the government providing people with food stamps is "socialism," while feeding people in a church soup kitchen is "charity"?

Yes. That is exactly correct. Robin Hood was a thief, and a socialist. The food stamps didn't spontaneously appear, the money was taken from other people. When you give your own money its charity, but when you give other peoples money its a crime. But... It's worse, because our government also gives money to bail out failing corporations, wall street tycoons, we defend over half the nations in the world from the other half, and when anything in the world breaks (like Haiti), we are expected to go fix it on our dime. The average debt owed per US family is now over $120,000. If we only ever spent money on widows, orphans, and those unable to care for themselves we'd not be in this much trouble. Instead, the government gives away millions to millionaires, and to corrupt bureaucrats within and without our own government. Consider this; All deficit spending is deferred taxation. We've got a big hole to fill, and it's only getting deeper fast.

I doubt that any theocracy (on this earth, anyway) would life up to your definitions of a "truly" christian nation -- any nation based on a specific ideology, religious or otherwise, is not likely to be a tolerant one.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No true Christian in my definition would pursue fame or power. I think much like George Washington, they tend to have the responsibility pushed upon them.

Seems odd to suggest this given that the US has an extremely high level of religious belief and very full prisons while western Europe has a lower level of religious belief and less crowded prisons. But I do agree with you that people who are engage in a social structure of one form or another are less likely to commit crimes.

Actually, a majority of people in the US claim to be Christians, but less than half actually attend church regularly (about 40%.) compared to about 20% in Canada, or 10% in the UK (less in Sweden, Netherlands, and France). I would actually call the 60% of Americans agnostics, they are unsure, unchurched and uncommitted. Now, consider how many of the 40% would be enlightened Christians who actually have based their beliefs on some level of reasoning (I would estimate < 5%). Most people go along because they feel it is the easier path to go with the status quo. Still, from the research, it seems that the important statistic is regular attendance in some positive life enriching activity, whatever the heck they are teaching as long as it is teaching moral behavior and social responsibility.

[Jester]

No true Christian in my definition would pursue fame or power.

No true Christian...

Your definition of "Christian" has little or nothing to do with the 2 billion people popularly called "Christians." Have you considered perhaps using a different word, given that this one is already taken? From the sound of it, you're looking for something halfway between "Saint" and "Angel." Might I suggest Cherubim? Nobody really uses that one any longer.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Your definition of "Christian" has little or nothing to do with the 2 billion people popularly called "Christians." Have you considered perhaps using a different word, given that this one is already taken? From the sound of it, you're looking for something halfway between "Saint" and "Angel." Might I suggest Cherubim? Nobody really uses that one any longer.

I dunno. What do you call people who've read and understand what that Rabbi Jesus taught, and actually live it?

Edit: regarding "No True Scotsman" -- "In situations where the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors, the "no true" construction is not a fallacy of this kind." I define a Christian as a person who is has internalized the teachings of that rabbi Jesus, and lives their life accordingly. Murder and torture are inconsistent with Christianity, and so when committed are not in keeping with the philosophy. Those that commit them may call themselves Christians, but they are not following the philosophy of Christianity. No true vegetarian eats meat. But, if an otherwise faithful vegetarian did eat meat once, they might still be redeemed and return to a vegetarian lifestyle.

Even in the broad view of Christians (those who've had some water sprinkled on their heads as babies), I reject the hypothesis that because some X are Y, that All X are Y. In this case, because some Christians (throughout history) have been involved in atrocities, that Christianity is a religion of atrocities. Likewise, some Muslims (throughout history) have been involved in atrocities, that Islam is a religion of atrocities. Or, that Theism, or Atheism has anything to do with crime statistics, other than to show that Atheists, who are usually well educated commit less crimes, while Theists more of whom are uneducated commit more crimes. The correlation is actually between education level and crime, with a position on theism being the red herring in this case. Except that, involvement of youth in character building extracurricular activities correlates to less juvenile delinquency and less adult crime. Even education level is a bit off track, because it correlates to income level. The actual hard correlation is between poverty and crime.

I think it would likewise be a fantasy that all people become wealthy enough to become post graduates, and educated enough to rise above our more simple moral social structures, like religion.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I dunno. What do you call people who've read and understand what that Rabbi Jesus taught, and actually live it?

Imaginary.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

I dunno. What do you call people who've read and understand what that Rabbi Jesus taught, and actually live it?

I don't mean anything by this but this seems like an appropriate place to ask a question. I also don't mean to ask kandrathe personally.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

This quote is attributed to Gandhi. I quite like it. Can anyone tell me if it is a factual quote?

[--Pete]

Hi,

This quote is attributed to Gandhi. I quite like it. Can anyone tell me if it is a factual quote?

I put {Gandhi 'I like your Christ'} in Google and got a lot of results. I checked a few, and they seem genuine. Best I could do, but it looks to be a true quote.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

I put {Gandhi 'I like your Christ'} in Google and got a lot of results. I checked a few, and they seem genuine. Best I could do, but it looks to be a true quote.

Thanks Pete.

[Thecla]

No true Christian in my definition would pursue fame or power.

Your careful parsing of who does or doesn't count as a Christian seems to me to be at odds with your willingness to make sweeping statements about, let's say, Danes or Muslims.

No truly religious person --- be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever --- would condone flying planes into office buildings full of people at work (nor, for that matter, would any athiest who holds a true regard for human life).

[kandrathe]

Your careful parsing of who does or doesn't count as a Christian seems to me to be at odds with your willingness to make sweeping statements about, let's say, Danes or Muslims.

For Danes, no. Muslims, maybe. Danes are Danes, and you can speak about their majority views, since they cannot help but be Danes no matter what their beliefs. Thus the fallacy of "No True Scotsman" would apply. It is interesting though, that 80% of Danes still belong to the State run Lutheran church. Can we call them Lutheran atheists? Muslims, have the option of renouncing Islam, and face extreme consequences for doing so, but still have the option. I'm talking about a group that spans global geography and counts for 1/6th of the worlds population. There is certainly great variation in belief and practice across that population. I base my opinion on what I read in Islamic press, which probably biases me toward the moderate. If you took a stadium of people in America and began dissecting the population by the following questions, 1) Are you a Christian?, 2) Do you attend church regularly? 3) Can you recite the major tenets of the faith? 4) Have you read the Bible, studied your faith and understand it deeply? By the end of that process, you'd find the population I'd consider to be Christian which undoubtedly still contains 100% who have and will continue to commit offenses to their faith. The same would apply to any philosophy with the stages of identity, practice, cursory knowledge, scholarship.

No truly religious person --- be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever --- would condone flying planes into office buildings full of people at work (nor, for that matter, would any atheist who holds a true regard for human life).

I agree, unless the person is convinced that their philosophy justifies or demands homicidal binges.

[kandrathe]

Imaginary.

:lol: I was thinking... Rare.

[Jester]

I agree, unless the person is convinced that their philosophy justifies or demands homicidal binges.

Someone like Scott Roeder is no doubt "convinced that his philosophy justifies or demands homicidal binges." Would that not then, by what you've just said, put him back in the "Christian" camp, even by your own argument?

(Incidentally, this rule would create a very odd set of adherents to any religion - the saintly plus the psychotic, and nobody in the middle.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

(Incidentally, this rule would create a very odd set of adherents to any religion - the saintly plus the psychotic, and nobody in the middle.)

There's a difference? From my recollection of The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints (required daily reading in my Catholic schools), I'd say most of the saints were at least neurotic.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Someone like Scott Roeder is no doubt "convinced that his philosophy justifies or demands homicidal binges." Would that not then, by what you've just said, put him back in the "Christian" camp, even by your own argument?

(Incidentally, this rule would create a very odd set of adherents to any religion - the saintly plus the psychotic, and nobody in the middle.)

Not really. You can exclude the deranged, because their psychosis obscures their reason. A person may believe they are Napoleon, but it does not make it so. Roeder was a person who should have been committed for the betterment of society. His homicidal binge was inevitable whatever form it might have taken. He might just have easily been swayed to join ELF. There are (seemingly) sane people though that misrepresent Christianity (like Fred Phelps) where their selective reading and interpretations are just wrong.

I don't subscribe to the Catholic notion of Saint, with a capital "S", but I think the use of the word saint does describe what I would say Christian's aspire to. But, after all, we are only human and will make mistakes. The vegetarian will occasionally be tempted to have the juicy steak or hamburger now and then.

[eppie]

Hi,
I have no idea of the actual number, but I do remember the film clips on September 12, 2001. If you were watching, you probably remember them too. The ones with common, everyday Muslims dancing in the streets because Americans were killed. So, I don't know how many have gone through a terrorist training camp, or are members in terrorist groups, or are willing financial contributors to those groups. But the number that *condone* terrorist violence? I suspect that 10% may be extremely low.

--Pete

Then again, how many americans were really happy that Iraq was bombed. Or how many cheered when McCain made his bomb-Iran speech.

Of course you can point at the difference between terrorism in the 9/11 way or bombing by armies in the Iraq/Afghanistan or Beirut, but for the victims that makes very little difference

It is easy to cheer when an 'enemy' gets hurt, even though you personally don't even know them.

The point that I am making is that the number of people that you saw cheering at a certain event are not a good argument here. It is a well known fact that being attacked or having enemies is the way to increase religious extremism. If that is GW Bush who attacks Iraq because God tells him to, or Bin Laden that attacks the US because Allah tells him to doesnot make a difference.