Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're right in pointing out the wrong-headedness of the church in coloring this escapade with the rubrics of sanctity. And you're also right in pointing out the various injustices dealt out by the conquering armies of the First Crusade.
Hmmm. Hmmmm. The first Crusade. Forgetting about all the rest? The First Crusade should never have happened. The West deserved to loose the Holy land after they got it. That should of been it, but they kept going back. Again. And Again. And you seem to be separating the "Church" from the people back then. In those days the Church was the authority. The Church was the religion. The religion itself was wrong in every sense, warped by the ignorance and fear - it shouldn't be made out the Church was somehow a minority seperate from the religion. Care to think about the period the Crusades covered? They weren't some temporary maddness that quickly passed.
But you're wrong in suggesting that this event doesn't take place within the larger context of prior Muslim injustice and agression.
And I say this is a sign of ignorance and once again the acceptance of the Eurocentric view - which does not stand up to the historical research. It shows no knowledge of the Ummayad or Abbasids or Arab empires which were far more tolerant and enlightened then any western power at the time. The Ummayad originally had huge non-Muslim/Islamic populations - who converted by choice. There is no evidence of some evil forced conversion - nothing to rival or even come close to Christian actions following its declaration of State religion of Rome and so on. Things only changed with the influx of newly converted Islamic tribes - the Turks. And even then things were far from the massive injustices and aggressions you seem to be making out.
Nothing in the Islamic history up to the Crusades comes close to the tyranny, cruelty and injustices perpetuated by the Crusaders against both Christians and non-Christians alike. And it is disingenuous and erroneous to try and slide some sort of moral measure up to them "The Crusades were wrong, but only in context of the Muslim wrongs!"
Atheism and Marxism have led to gross, historically unpredented evils. I would certainly put up religion's score card next to secular humanism's any day.
Care to tell us what Atheists have done that put them up the atrocities committed in the name of religions - like Christianity and Islam? Last I remember Atheism has no history as an ideology that demanded things like the conversion of believers and non-believers alike, or religiously motivated wars, or the suppression of science or anything like that.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Care to tell us what Atheists have done that put them up the atrocities committed in the name of religions - like Christianity and Islam? Last I remember Atheism has no history as an ideology that demanded things like the conversion of believers and non-believers alike, or religiously motivated wars, or the suppression of science or anything like that.
Try all of the various statisms of the twentieth century. Yes, atheism in this form did demand ideological adherence and committed atrocities against non-conformers. Poland, a U.S.S.R. satellite after WWII, was forced to sit by and see the Catholic Church essentially outlawed. Seminarians studied at risk of imprisonment or death. Unrepentant and outspoken Catholics were killed by the state. The same environment applied to most of the states within the Soviet sphere of influence.
In a Nazi Germany, another state-instituted atheism, science was turned into a kook factory. Nazi theories of race, sociology, and even physics were promulgated. Jewish scientists were largely forced to flee for their lives. Even in the Soviet Union, science was hemmed in by the ideology of the state, which did not allow the expression of theories at variance with the prevalent interpretation of Marxism.
The French Revolution. Priests and nuns were rounded up several times en masse and executed to help issue in the new "purely rational" order.
I bring up the plight of the Church in these scenarios because it underscores the particular animosity of these regimes to the institutions of religion. Why this desire to expunge the Church, if the absolute state didn't depend upon a competing and incompatible creed of atheism?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.
Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was a major obstacle in the path of his material dialetic.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.
Oh yes, Bertrand Russell. I actually respect a majority of his work. What of him? I'm not arguing that all atheists are dictators. I'm merely pointing out that the belief in atheism, tied to grand "rational", social engineering schemes, has more often than not led to abject misery. I point this out to counter the accusation that atheism is "innocent" in a political context. It's not. If Christianity can be implicated in historical crimes perpetrated by men claiming they act in the name of God, so can a Communist dictator who claims he acts in the best interests of mankind by wiping out religion and its adherents.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
marxism hasnt led to atrocities. its just developed an enviornment where men have no motivation in life. if u want a philosopher to go by follow bertrand russel instead of tha on track mind marx! btw marxism and atheism ae 2 very different things.
never lead to attrocites?
um, Angola, Iraq, former Yugoslavia...etc. not to mention the most infamous case-
"Democratic Kampuchea"
"now you can go where people are one,
now you can go where they get things done
what you need my son
is a holiday in cambodia, it's tough kid but it's life.
holiday in cambodia, don't forget to pack a wife....."
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Try all of the various statisms of the twentieth century. Yes, atheism in this form did demand ideological adherence and committed atrocities against non-conformers. Poland, a U.S.S.R. satellite after WWII, was forced to sit by and see the Catholic Church essentially outlawed. Seminarians studied at risk of imprisonment or death. Unrepentant and outspoken Catholics were killed by the state. The same environment applied to most of the states within the Soviet sphere of influence.In a Nazi Germany, another state-instituted atheism, science was turned into a kook factory. Nazi theories of race, sociology, and even physics were promulgated. Jewish scientists were largely forced to flee for their lives. Even in the Soviet Union, science was hemmed in by the ideology of the state, which did not allow the expression of theories at variance with the prevalent interpretation of Marxism.
The French Revolution. Priests and nuns were rounded up several times en masse and executed to help issue in the new "purely rational" order.
I bring up the plight of the Church in these scenarios because it underscores the particular animosity of these regimes to the institutions of religion. Why this desire to expunge the Church, if the absolute state didn't depend upon a competing and incompatible creed of atheism?
Really it sounds like, to me, that you are linking atheism to political/social ideologies and their atrocities. Nazi Germany? It was the antisemitic policies of the regime that were to blame for the persecution of the Jews, not the atheistic leanings of the Nazis. They weren't going about saying "Lets kill Jews because we are atheists" - likewise, you forget the persecution here of Marxists, different socialists, disabled, as well as other racial groups. There is no clear link between atheism and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Or are you saying if the Nazis had been Catholic then they wouldn't have done what they did?
And the French Revolution - so priests and nuns got persecuted? I mean, sure, clearly that reveals the truth - it wasn't a class war at all, it was purely atheists getting their own back. You don't think it might have had anything to do with the Church's support of the monarchy? The fact the Church was tremendously wealthy? The fact they had a well known history of lending money to those who couldn't always pay it back? Everyone got persecuted - including the poor eventually. Just because some priests and nuns lost their heads doesn't some how mean the whole event was some sort of super atheist plot.
And sure - same with Communist nations. However the reason the Church was often outlawed was because it demanded a persons loyalties lie in places other then the state. They were shut down because they challenged state authority. It was political - not atheistic. None of these show atrocities being committed in the name of atheism. In the name of Fascism, in the Name of Stalanism or in the Name of God and Christianity. Or for Allah and Islam. Or In the Name of Mob Rule. None of them carried banners going "Kill all for we are Atheists."
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
None of these show atrocities being committed in the name of atheism. In the name of Fascism, in the Name of Stalanism or in the Name of God and Christianity. Or for Allah and Islam. Or In the Name of Mob Rule. None of them carried banners going "Kill all for we are Atheists."
Didn't have to. Everyone in the gulags and in front of the firing squads knew what the message was.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Didn't have to. Everyone in the gulags and in front of the firing squads knew what the message was.
A ridiculous claim. Atheism has never been used as an ideology opening to persecute such as Christianity, Islam, Stalanism, Fascism, racism etc have been. In all the examples given there are far more predominate reasons for the persecution and oppression then Atheism. And in all you examples you leave out the masses of people whose deaths and suffering have absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. You trying to add Atheism to the defining ideology of these tyrannies does not stand up to scrutiny. Political and racist reasons stand for the persecutions, not atheistic motivations.
Yet still there are plenty of cases where people have been persecuted in your Church's history for being Atheists. As a declared "in the name of" action, that can not be debated away. That a person is an atheistic while committing crimes in the name of fascism does not somehow damn atheism. Just as the fact a person can speak latin while committing an atrocity does not somehow make Latanism somehow relevant for why he is doing it. The Nazis persecuted in accordance with the Nazi doctrine, not an atheistic one.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A ridiculous claim. Atheism has never been used as an ideology opening to persecute such as Christianity, Islam, Stalanism, Fascism, racism etc have been. In all the examples given there are far more predominate reasons for the persecution and oppression then Atheism. And in all you examples you leave out the masses of people whose deaths and suffering have absolutely nothing to do with religion what so ever. You trying to add Atheism to the defining ideology of these tyrannies does not stand up to scrutiny. Political and racist reasons stand for the persecutions, not atheistic motivations.Yet still there are plenty of cases where people have been persecuted in your Church's history for being Atheists. As a declared "in the name of" action, that can not be debated away. That a person is an atheistic while committing crimes in the name of fascism does not somehow damn atheism. Just as the fact a person can speak latin while committing an atrocity does not somehow make Latanism somehow relevant for why he is doing it. The Nazis persecuted in accordance with the Nazi doctrine, not an atheistic one.
Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was an obstacle to be overcome by a material dialectic. His real world successors followed the brutal logic of this idea by "helping" religion die out.
By the way, I'm not arguing that all atheists are dictators. I'm merely pointing out that the belief in atheism, tied to all of the twentieth centuries' "rational", social engineering schemes, has more often than not led to abject misery. I point this out to counter the assertion that atheism is "innocent" in a political context. It's not. If Christianity can be implicated in historical crimes perpetrated by men claiming they act in the name of God, so can a Communist dictator who claims he acts in the best interests of mankind by wiping out religion and its adherents.
You're right in pointing out that not everyone crushed underneath the heal of the various twentieth century dictators was done so explicitly because of their faith, but their were plenty that were. Ask the Poles, the Ukrainians, and others how the Communist state felt about their religious faith.
Also, I thought you were a Muslim. Are you a Marxist-leaning Muslim?
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Yes, but atheism is a central tenant of Marxism. Remember that "opiate of the people" line? Marx thought religion was an obstacle to be overcome by a material dialectic. His real world successors followed the brutal logic of this idea by "helping" religion die out.
Central tenant? I have read the manifesto, I know the parts dealing with it, and Atheism is far from a central tenant in what is primarily an economic political ideology. Atheism in relation to Marxist policy is once again political in nature - freeing the population from the addiction to the promises of Church's so that people could turn their efforts to working for the greater good. Political - Marxism was incompatible with people having a something challenging state unity. It would, you will find, have been equally down on cultural movements that led people away from state loyalty. Or philosophical ones. It simply materialised that Marx made reference to religion, due to the context and time he and Engals were writing the Manifesto.
By the way, I'm not arguing that all atheists are dictators. I'm merely pointing out that the belief in atheism, tied to all of the twentieth centuries' "rational", social engineering schemes, has more often than not led to abject misery. I point this out to counter the assertion that atheism is "innocent" in a political context. It's not. If Christianity can be implicated in historical crimes perpetrated by men claiming they act in the name of God, so can a Communist dictator who claims he acts in the best interests of mankind by wiping out religion and its adherents.
Atheists have done bad things. Theists have done bad things. The difference usually as their is a declared, ideologically motivated reason for these bad things. In the case of the Theists it their religion - whatever it may be. However in the case of the Atheists it is almost always due to something like Fascism/Nazism or Communism or so on. Never to a single, pure, ideology motivated by Atheism. And as I have already mentioned often when religion comes up it is primarily of political consideration. Prior to WWII Germans started persecuting Catholics due to the political disruption they were causing and the influence they still had over the population. Atheism in this case was born out of political need - we have religious men challenging our authority. The answer? Ban religion. Not the other way around - We are Atheists, let us ban religion. It is quite likely if the Catholics hadn't been so disruptive the Nazi regime would have passed them over for far longer.
You're right in pointing out that not everyone crushed underneath the heal of the various twentieth century dictators was done so explicitly because of their faith, but their were plenty that were. Ask the Poles, the Ukrainians, and others how the Communist state felt about their religious faith.
Yes. Not everyone crushed was because of religious leanings. In fact the vast majority crushed were crushed for reasons totally unconnceted to religion. And even those that were can have their persecutions traced back to political/strategic reasoning.
Also, I thought you were a Muslim. Are you a Marxist-leaning Muslim?
No. I am borderline agnostic/atheistic. If I ever followed a religion I suspect, from the way I think and feel it would likely be Buddhism (though I have a fondness for Hinuism as well.) At the moment though? As to my political leanings, well I have a certain admiration for parts of Socialism, and Marxism, even though I am aware at the vast unlikelihood of Marxism ever turning out well. Far better not to have it, then have it going wrong. However, doesn't mean I can't say certain of its values are worth pursuing.
Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No. I am borderline agnostic/atheistic. If I ever followed a religion I suspect, from the way I think and feel it would likely be Buddhism (though I have a fondness for Hinuism as well.) At the moment though? As to my political leanings, well I have a certain admiration for parts of Socialism, and Marxism, even though I am aware at the vast unlikelihood of Marxism ever turning out well. Far better not to have it, then have it going wrong. However, doesn't mean I can't say certain of its values are worth pursuing.Anyway - I have no reason to love or hate Christianity. Or Islam or any religion - never been harmed or benefited by them. My opinions are born from study and so forth. Not indoctrinated loyalty for one over the other. I am just as capable of of arguing against Islam - if such a stance is justified.
Well, that's as honest a statement and self-evaluation as I could have asked for. I have no problem with someone entertaining thoughts different from my own, as long as they are able to admit the accompanying problems and difficulties.
Christianity has certainly not always comported itself well when vested with temporal power. In fact, I'm grateful that the Catholic Church has long since divested itself of such offices. Better to be weak in material terms and remain truth-serving than politically powerful and self-serving.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Well, that's as honest a statement and self-evaluation as I could have asked for. I have no problem with someone entertaining thoughts different from my own, as long as they are able to admit the accompanying problems and difficulties.Christianity has certainly not always comported itself well when vested with temporal power. In fact, I'm grateful that the Catholic Church has long since divested itself of such offices. Better to be weak in material terms and remain truth-serving than politically powerful and self-serving.
I think Religion should be something people keep on a personal level, rather than invite it to politics.
You have every right to suggest I live a different way, and tell me what you're beleifs are. But for you to try to change the way I live my life by making laws that limit my freedom, and center around your idealogy is plain wrong.