Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[kandrathe]

You're free to reject it. I'm just wondering if you have any examples outside Communists, because, since I accept Russell's argument (it actually seems pretty obvious to me), the field starts to empty out very quickly.

If you eliminate godless communists (at the height was > 60% of the world population) and any religious people (86% of the world), then no, the population of megalomaniacal agnostic socialists doesn't seem that large. Still, you'd then need to look into nations such as Britain, US, Germany, Netherlands, etc. in their colonial land grabs, and extermination of the indigenous peoples. There are by and large more examples of non-religious genocide than the other, yet, again, I would say because of Europes Protestant/Catholic wars, most Europeans have an ingrained pathology towards organized religion. Those unfortunates in Europe who are outed as "Chuch goers" are considered to be ape like throw backs who've rejected everything enlightenment stood for. So, as eppie pointed out, you have legislated religious tolerance, but have implemented social intolerance. This is why, in an ironic turnabout, the largest producer of missionaries is Africa, and the most popular destination for mission outreach by these African missionaries is the US, and Europe.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just don't buy the Bertrand Russell argument.

Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific. Russell was rather prolific and I don't know which of his arguments you're referring to (although, apparently, Jester does).

--Pete

[Jester]

Sorry, but could you be a bit more specific. Russell was rather prolific and I don't know which of his arguments you're referring to (although, apparently, Jester does).

The argument that Communism is essentially a religion - and a particularly nasty one at that.

The shortest relevant summary, from his brief essay "What is an Agnostic?"

Communism like agnosticism opposes religion, are agnostics Communists?

Communism does not oppose religion. It merely opposes the Christian religion, just as Mohammedanism does. Communism, at least in the form advocated by the Soviet Government and the Communist Party, is a new system of dogma of a peculiarly virulent and persecuting sort. Every genuine Agnostic must therefore be opposed to it.

Communism might not be a religion in the theological sense, but it certainly seems to be one in the functional sense, down to the nuts and bolts. It even has the handy introductory text that everyone reads (Communist Manifesto, as compared to the Gospels, or maybe just Matthew), the heavy dogmatic tome that nobody reads (Das Capital, as compared with the Old Testament), not to mention endless reams of commentary and interpretation (as opposed to actual criticism) by acolytes.

An earlier, though much more detailed analysis is found in The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.

-Jester

[Jester]

If you eliminate godless communists (at the height was > 60% of the world population) and any religious people (86% of the world), then no, the population of megalomaniacal agnostic socialists doesn't seem that large.

Well, it's probably around half a billion people right now, not counting dogmatic Communists (or those living under their boots). I'm not sure when it ever got to 60% of the world's population, even including all peoples living under Communist regimes. Maybe 30%, before the end of the cold war?

Still, you'd then need to look into nations such as Britain, US, Germany, Netherlands, etc. in their colonial land grabs, and extermination of the indigenous peoples.

Back when all of those countries, both people and leaders, were overtly religious?

There are by and large more examples of non-religious genocide than the other, yet, again, I would say because of Europes Protestant/Catholic wars, most Europeans have an ingrained pathology towards organized religion.

That's strange, because most Europeans are religious.

Those unfortunates in Europe who are outed as "Chuch goers" are considered to be ape like throw backs who've rejected everything enlightenment stood for. So, as eppie pointed out, you have legislated religious tolerance, but have implemented social intolerance.

Uh hunh. Poor persecuted Christians. It's like the 1st century AD all over again, being thrown to the lions. Never mind that the majority of the population in nearly all European countries are Christians, at least nominal ones. Never mind that "Christian democratic" parties dominate the legislatures of many European countries. Never mind that practically all heads of state and government are religious, and most of those quite overtly religious. Never mind that Christianity is practised freely, daily, and everywhere in Europe by hundreds of millions of people with no persecution. And certainly don't look at the tendency to conflate religious belief with nationalism (see both: anti-semitism and anti-islamic sentiments). It makes for a much better story that there's just so darn much intolerance against Christians.

This is why, in an ironic turnabout, the largest producer of missionaries is Africa, and the most popular destination for mission outreach by these African missionaries is the US, and Europe.

Did they give Canada a miss? Overwhelmingly, the missionaries I've seen in my life, everywhere in the world, have been Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also, living in the first world is rather popular for all sorts of reasons. I'm not sure the "ironic" ones factor quite as highly as the "Europe and the US are nice places to live" ones.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The argument that Communism is essentially a religion - and a particularly nasty one at that.

Aha. Thank you. I should have figured it out, but this topic has been so twisty that I lost track of the original mention.

Though I usually find myself in agreement with BR, in this I do not. I think that a good argument may be made for the premise that all religions are belief systems. I do not think that the converse is true. While communism, as pointed out by BR, shares many characteristics (I almost said 'symptoms') with religion, it lacks the concept of a superior being in who's name all actions are justified. Doesn't make communism any better, just different.

--Pete

[Jester]

Though I usually find myself in agreement with BR, in this I do not. I think that a good argument may be made for the premise that all religions are belief systems. I do not think that the converse is true. While communism, as pointed out by BR, shares many characteristics (I almost said 'symptoms') with religion, it lacks the concept of a superior being in who's name all actions are justified. Doesn't make communism any better, just different.

In the case of Communism, I would say it's not a personified deity so much as an idealized process of history. All actions by the privileged vanguard towards the eventual goal of a utopian "Communist" society are both inevitable and moral - it's like Calvinism, really.

However, the core of the argument is functional. Communism works as a religion, with its dogma and its sins, its priests and believers. Its concepts may be different, but the practise is the same. And when religion unleashes horrors on the world, it isn't usually because of the high minded theology, but because of its social functioning.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Did they give Canada a miss?

Yes. No one wants to live in Canada. :) Not even you. :lol:

Overwhelmingly, the missionaries I've seen in my life, everywhere in the world, have been Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Since proselytizing and missions is a requirement, I can understand why you see more of them.

[kandrathe]

In the case of Communism, I would say it's not a personified deity so much as an idealized process of history. All actions by the privileged vanguard towards the eventual goal of a utopian "Communist" society are both inevitable and moral - it's like Calvinism, really.

However, the core of the argument is functional. Communism works as a religion, with its dogma and its sins, its priests and believers. Its concepts may be different, but the practice is the same. And when religion unleashes horrors on the world, it isn't usually because of the high minded theology, but because of its social functioning.

I think I made the same case on the LL awhile ago that in some ways "Science" is a belief system that people put their faith in to solve their problems and hope will make their future better. Think of the horror of nuclear weapons, which was not a thing prayed into existence.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes. No one wants to live in Canada. :) Not even you. :lol:

Yes. Which is why I voted for Kirsten;)

--Pete

[Jester]

Yes. Which is why I voted for Kirsten;)

I think there's a typo in the script... surely, they meant that great milk comes from Hippie cows? It is California...

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think I made the same case on the LL awhile ago that in some ways "Science" is a belief system that people put their faith in to solve their problems and hope will make their future better.

Then you have no understanding of what science is. If you use the word 'science' in its loose, colloquial meaning, then it becomes almost meaningless. Cooking as a science? Bah. You are playing the most transparent semantic game, implying the most strict definition of a word and then arguing from its other common uses.

'Science' is *not* a belief system. If anything, it is a system of skepticism where for the acceptance of any idea, the validity of that idea has to be carefully demonstrated in a controlled, reproducible fashion. And no idea of science, other than the basic idea of the scientific method itself, is sacrosanct. Every concept, every postulate, every conclusion in science is subject to re-evaluation, modification, and even abandonment in the light of new evidence. It is a continuously self correcting attempt to discover some glimpses of the workings of nature.

The basis for nuclear weapons (and nuclear energy) as well as bridges, automobiles, central heating, high rise buildings, and a crapload of modern technology and conveniences are based on science but are not science -- they are engineering. Science solves no problems, it simply studies what is.

Of course, if you wish to speak of the 'science' of washing dishes, you are free to do so. But it is intellectual dishonesty to start from there and then claim properties for true science. Hell, it's as phony as basing your religious arguments on the 'fact' that 'money is some people's religion'.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes. It's coming back. I think you had the same reaction back then as well. :)

First, most scientists are not the faithful. It's the laymen in our would who place their faith in things beyond their understanding, whether that be God, or the unknowns of science.

Engineering, science, mathematics... Together they've concocted the most devious and efficient ways of decimating vast populations. Also, they've done vast good. Mostly humans are great at applying knowledge without the application of wisdom. But, I'm not one of those people who believes Teller and Oppenheimer were evil geniuses. They solved a problem with horrific consequences. If not them, then some one else would have done it, and maybe it would have been Honolulu or London that would have been devastated.

[eppie]

Communism works as a religion, with its dogma and its sins, its priests and believers.
-Jester

And so does capitalism. I think the big difference is that communism always went hand in hand with dictators while capitalism is mainly practised in democracies.

[eppie]

Still, you'd then need to look into nations such as Britain, US, Germany, Netherlands, etc. in their colonial land grabs, and extermination of the indigenous peoples.

The genocide and atrocities commited by the colonial dutch were probably not based on religion. They were based on system of religion and pure capitalism.

There are by and large more examples of non-religious genocide than the other, yet, again, I would say because of Europes Protestant/Catholic wars, most Europeans have an ingrained pathology towards organized religion.

You would hope so but they don't. Despite the still continuing bad influence of religion in europe (racism, inequality, hatred, child abuse, taking away people's freedoms) most europeans are having a quite good opinion of religion......that is of course their own religion, because everybody with a different religion is evil per definition.

Those unfortunates in Europe who are outed as "Chuch goers" are considered to be ape like throw backs who've rejected everything enlightenment stood for.

Yep, try to say that in Spain, Italy, Poland, Greece, Ireland, the Balcans, South of Germany, there people don't hesitate to chase some non-believers (or gays, or raped women that want to have an abortion, or foreigners) out of their village with pitch-forks.

So, as eppie pointed out, you have legislated religious tolerance, but have implemented social intolerance.

We in Holland had legislated religious tolerance, but after the arrival of religious immigrants, the welcoming in the EU of religious nations and the new era of populists what we are left with is social intolerance, but don't blame that on atheists.

[kandrathe]

The genocide and atrocities commited by the colonial dutch were probably not based on religion. They were based on system of religion and pure capitalism.

I don't agree. I think in that period, the operating rule was that might makes right. Even among European powers it was typical that if land could be taken by force, then you did take it. It's not a system of religious beliefs, or economic policy that shaped this mind set, but rather the experience of nations who endured thousands of years of internecine warfare. In many respects, the behaviors of the indigenous Americans was little different. The only difference between the American savages and the European savages was their technology. Perhaps you are confusing capitalism with greed.

You would hope so but they don't. Despite the still continuing bad influence of religion in europe (racism, inequality, hatred, child abuse, taking away people's freedoms) most europeans are having a quite good opinion of religion......that is of course their own religion, because everybody with a different religion is evil per definition.

Wow. The cup really is half empty with you.

Yep, try to say that in Spain, Italy, Poland, Greece, Ireland, the Balcans, South of Germany, there people don't hesitate to chase some non-believers (or gays, or raped women that want to have an abortion, or foreigners) out of their village with pitch-forks.

Certainly Europe is a tapestry of contradictions, just as is the USA. There are places where religious beliefs are more strongly held (and have been for centuries). I'm looking at places like Czech Republic, Denmark, heck, Scandinavia. Even the nations you have mentioned as strong holds have experienced vast declines in church attendance.

We in Holland had legislated religious tolerance, but after the arrival of religious immigrants, the welcoming in the EU of religious nations and the new era of populists what we are left with is social intolerance, but don't blame that on atheists.

Well, even though you have a plurality of non-believers within the Dutch population, you have become a minority within the EU. There's the riff-raff nations again... under educated, weak currencies, and knuckle dragging church goers.

[eppie]

Perhaps you are confusing capitalism with greed.

Well, 17th century Netherlands invented capitalism, that is why I mentioned this. Of course greed is the basic motive, but it works a lot better when you can call it something that makes it look noble to the outside world.
Religion had always been that 'something'; killing people is fine, as long as they are differently coloured pagan savages, and steeling and destroying stuff from other countries to get rich quick is also a very good thing to do, god created the earth for mankinds benefit (that is of course something catholics a really in favour of, but also the dutch protestants didn't mind.....as long as you dressed sober you can make as much money as and how you want).
Capitalism is something that made it all possible for us (to get enough money to set up the VOC and the WIC )

[Jester]

I'm looking at places like Czech Republic, Denmark, heck, Scandinavia. Even the nations you have mentioned as strong holds have experienced vast declines in church attendance.

There's a yawning gap between "people have stopped caring enough to bother going to church" and "intolerance is rising against Christians." To my mind, the first means tolerance is increasing, to the point where the traditional State Religion is finally giving way to general live-and-let-live. Religion becomes a personal question, rather than a necessary social commitment. As far as I'm concerned, the second is a fantasy nurtured by reactionaries pining for a lost golden age of near-universal religiosity, and threatened by the idea that the next generations might move away from the treasured beliefs of their ancestors.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Religion becomes a personal question, rather than a necessary social commitment.

Well, absolutely. There is an old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it." Perhaps people in Europe are tired of having their heads held under the water?

First century Christians were repulsed by the thought of having to worship the Roman emperor as a god, so it is beyond me to know why they would have ever felt that any State religion should be compulsory? Hence the US prohibition and tradition of keeping decisions of religious faith out of the government. Although, I would say that many are confused still in what that means. For example, children are allowed to pray in school, however the school cannot compel students to pray. The US Constitution allows for any citizen to engage in expressions of their religious faith and no law can be made that curtails that right. There is a case currently in the courts where a public schools cheerleaders make a banner for the football players to crash through which frequently has religious expression on it. It is clearly not a school sanctioned activity, so restricting it would be a violation of those students "free exercise".

In general, I do see a trend where people and governments are moving to bar people from free expression. Religious organizations are routinely being coerced or prosecuted for adhering to their belief systems. Tolerance seems to be a one way street. This is most evident in the area of abortion, traditional marriage, and gay rights. I don't want to derail the discussion toward those hot button topics, but even freedom loving Canada is tossing citizens into jail or imposing heavy fines for the "hate speech" of displaying Bible verses. Tolerance it seems is a code word meaning "you will embrace our multicultural liberal world view or else".

Now, this does tie back to the original post: If you are a justice of the peace, and perform secular marriage on behalf of the State, then yes, of course you need to follow the laws which disallow discrimination. But, if you are the minister or priest of some church, then you are obligated to ensure that the people you marry adhere to the tenets of your particular denomination. Keith Bardwell is free to express his racist beliefs, although, he will probably also lose his job.

[Jester]

First century Christians were repulsed by the thought of having to worship the Roman emperor as a god, so it is beyond me to know why they would have ever felt that any State religion should be compulsory?

Funny how people get these different ideas when it's their religion that's in power...

Although, I would say that many are confused still in what that means. For example, children are allowed to pray in school, however the school cannot compel students to pray. The US Constitution allows for any citizen to engage in expressions of their religious faith and no law can be made that curtails that right. There is a case currently in the courts where a public schools cheerleaders make a banner for the football players to crash through which frequently has religious expression on it. It is clearly not a school sanctioned activity, so restricting it would be a violation of those students "free exercise".

School sports events, with school teams, school cheerleading squads, school coaches, school everything, are somehow not "school sanctioned activities"? I don't get it. If the cheerleaders and football players want to get together on their own time and make neato Touchdowns for Jesus banners, all power to them, but if they're a school team, at school events, they should keep religion out of it. (Or rather more forcefully - they are constitutionally obligated to keep religion out of it.)

In general, I do see a trend where people and governments are moving to bar people from free expression. Religious organizations are routinely being coerced or prosecuted for adhering to their belief systems.

Funny how they usually seem to be prosecuted for "adhering to their belief systems" when that involves denying everyone else's rights. Like you say - abortion (denying women that right) "traditional" marriage and gay rights (denying rights to gays). It's very handy to have a state that has historically upheld the beliefs of one's own dogma - how difficult it must be to have to have that comforting protection stripped away in favour of people you think are sinners - but thankfully, sin is not a legal category.

-Jester

[eppie]

In general, I do see a trend where people and governments are moving to bar people from free expression. Religious organizations are routinely being coerced or prosecuted for adhering to their belief systems. Tolerance seems to be a one way street. This is most evident in the area of abortion, traditional marriage, and gay rights. I don't want to derail the discussion toward those hot button topics, but even freedom loving Canada is tossing citizens into jail or imposing heavy fines for the "hate speech" of displaying Bible verses. Tolerance it seems is a code word meaning "you will embrace our multicultural liberal world view or else".

You don't seem to get the point.
Legalizing abortion is not the same as forcing someone to have an abortion. The liberal world view allows religious people not to have an abortion if they get raped. The liberal view however allows people to have an abortion if they want to (with certain rules of course).
The religious view says; I am against abortion so I don't allow you to have one either. I am against euthanasia, so I don't want to allow your terminally ill grandpa who is in a lot of pain to decide to end things quietly and painlessly when he thinks it is right.

No liberal will ever force a religious person to do certain things. But the other way around is all to common. Because you are living in a society where this kind of behaviour is the norm doesn't make it OK.