Once Upon Atrocity

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So, even if a dictator is not religious, his crimes against humanity are inspired by;

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility

Well, not that they personally were inspired by such things, but it is what allowed them to attain and maintain power, to inspire loyalty, obedience and complicity from their subjects and to appear as morally upright while doing so. In reference to a quote earlier, these are the things needed for otherwise good people to be a party to horrendous deeds.

Attributes that religion has in spades you say.

Yes.

So indirectly, religion has influenced these men (Hitler, Stalin and Mao etc etc) in the structuring of their tyrannical regimes. Is that the jist of what you are saying or am I off the mark?

Not so much that established religions have influenced the structure they chose, more that they have similarities in how they structure themselves, I don't neccessarily imply causation. I am saying that hierarchical structures that involve the elements I have described should be regarded with extreme wariness due to what they have caused in the past.

Ultimately my point is in reference to this kind of argument:
Bill: I blame Islam for encouraging/justifying violent terrorism.
Job: That's like saying Atheism is responsible for the slaughter caused by Stalin!

Or

Job: Atheists are evil, because we've seen lots of famous atheists such as Stalin and Mao perform terrible acts.

The key issues is causation. Atheism does not cause Stalinesque tyranny, he just happened to be an atheist. We cannot say that a suicide bomber just happened to be a Muslim, his reasons for performing that act can be directly followed to his religious beliefs. When we talk about nightmarish organistions that can do such terrible things and convince their followers that it is just, and it is right, we almost always see those traits I've highlighted, and no one uses those traits more than religion.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Well, not that they personally were inspired by such things, but it is what allowed them to attain and maintain power, to inspire loyalty, obedience and complicity from their subjects and to appear as morally upright while doing so. In reference to a quote earlier, these are the things needed for otherwise good people to be a party to horrendous deeds.

I get what you're saying. But these men had to have certain skills to sell their ideas. Hitler gained loyalty and support from his propaganda rallies; the man could whip up a frenzy of emotions among the people at will. There were a number of reasons why these type of men were able to get otherwise good people to be a party to their horrendous deeds.

Zillah wrote: »

Ultimately my point is in reference to this kind of argument:
Bill: I blame Islam for encouraging/justifying violent terrorism.
Job: That's like saying Atheism is responsible for the slaughter caused by Stalin!

Or

Job: Atheists are evil, because we've seen lots of famous atheists such as Stalin and Mao perform terrible acts.

I'd be of the same line of thinking, always have been.

Zillah wrote: »

The key issues is causation. Atheism does not cause Stalinesque tyranny, he just happened to be an atheist. We cannot say that a suicide bomber just happened to be a Muslim, his reasons for performing that act can be directly followed to his religious beliefs. When we talk about nightmarish organistions that can do such terrible things and convince their followers that it is just, and it is right, we almost always see those traits I've highlighted, and no one uses those traits more than religion.

This is the issue with fundamentalism though. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists/fundamentalists. So how come a minority of people have been persuaded to commit such horrible acts in the name of their religion? The key word is persuaded. These extremists, this minority within a religion, have been brainwashed by opportunistic men; men who use religion as their tool for their agendas. I've heard the metaphor of the loaded gun before; but surely the gun is the man who is in control? The bullets? Whatever the resources he has at his disposal to further his agenda. In such circumstances I don't think it is fair to call religion a causal link; it has no choice in how it is used by these men in control.

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

This is the issue with fundamentalism though. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists/fundamentalists. So how come a minority of people have been persuaded to commit such horrible acts in the name of their religion? The key word is persuaded. These extremists, this minority within a religion, have been brainwashed by opportunistic men; men who use religion as their tool for their agendas. I've heard the metaphor of the loaded gun before; but surely the gun is the man who is in control? The bullets? Whatever the resources he has at his disposal to further his agenda. In such circumstances I don't think it is fair to call religion a causal link; it has no choice in how it is used by these men in control.

This is a perfect example. These poor men have made themselves vulnerable to such manipulations due to the principles of their religious society.

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates: The Koran dictates morality and is described as being final and complete, the very definition of rigid. The laws dictated in the Koran are not inspired by notions of respect for human rights, empathy or human dignity...they are based upon nothing more than supreme authority.
- Authority driven leadership: The most respected people in the Islamic world are those who are seen to represent Allah. In many cases they are not only the priests but also the judges in the courts and the final political authority. For example, contrary to popular opinion Ahmadinejad is not the top man is Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, described as the Supreme Leader.
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility: Islam is submission. To Allah, his teachings, his book, his laws and his earthly representatives.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

This is a perfect example. These poor men have made themselves vulnerable to such manipulations due to the principles of their religious society.

- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates: The Koran dictates morality and is described as being final and complete, the very definition of rigid. The laws dictated in the Koran are not inspired by notions of respect for human rights, empathy or human dignity...they are based upon nothing more than supreme authority.
- Authority driven leadership: The most respected people in the Islamic world are those who are seen to represent Allah. In many cases they are not only the priests but also the judges in the courts and the final political authority. For example, contrary to popular opinion Ahmadinejad is not the top man is Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, described as the Supreme Leader.
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility: Islam is submission. To Allah, his teachings, his book, his laws and his earthly representatives.

Why is it though that only a minority are committed to declaring a Jihad on the West?

Zillah

Only a minority of them are angry enough I suppose. I never claimed that Islam causes all who follow it to do such things, merely that we should ackowledge the role it has played in those who do.

Handsome Bob

Zillah wrote: »

Only a minority of them are angry enough I suppose. I never claimed that Islam causes all who follow it to do such things, merely that we should ackowledge the role it has played in those who do.

That's what I'm getting at mate. Why are these guys so angry? Because they are being brainwashed and manipulated. It's why I'm so weary of attributing levels of blame to religion when it come to these crimes; there are men in powerful positions and they will use religion however they see fit.

I think I'll leave it there man, I want to leave with a bit of credit before you break me down.:p:pac:

Zillah

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's what I'm getting at mate. Why are these guys so angry? Because they are being brainwashed and manipulated.

I meant angry at the West for blowing up their homes and families. But yes, I would describe the brainwashing/manipulation as part of it. Rather than being an alternative explanation to mine, I think it's inextricably integrated. There are only so many ways to make people accept authority driven leadership, rigid rules from a Holy Book and to abdicate their sense of responsibility.

I think I'll leave it there man, I want to leave with a bit of credit before you break me down.:p:pac:

No quarter!

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

I meant angry at the West for blowing up their homes and families.

I think that there is your Causal link right there. Now due to my ignorance of Muslim doctrine, I'll convert these people to Christianity for the sake of my point.

If a Christian nation was being thrown into such turmoil, but they had the morality as given through Christ, what could they do to stop it? The ones who held to Christs teachings would certainly not go blowing up buses and planes etc. However, if there were people who were so frustrated etc, that they weanted to get violent againt such oppression, how could they get people to support them? The people had a morality that wouldn't allow it. These people would not listen to a man who said '*&%* the bible, lets blow these people up'. Now these people, who feel they are under such duress, would probably welcome such vengeance, yet their religious views keep them from acting. However, if some clever folk come to them and 'show them' that their religion does in 'fact' justify such action, they can let go of this barrier keeping them from vengeance. These people are vulnerable to such things, as they probably desire this vengeance.

One 'could' go as far as to say, that such religion actually keeps more people from carrying out such things than if there was no religion. If there was no religion, it could possibly be easier for people to justify their actions also. I would say in such a moral vacum, people like Stalin or Mao could pretty much dictate how it goes down as it can come down to 'its us or them'.

IMO, an honest assesment of this matter shows that religion at worst, is the same as any form of governance. It can be abused. What it comes down to IMO, is that people are responsible for their own behaviour. What leads them to their decisions can be bad or good, but ultimately they are the ones that make them.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

I think that there is your Causal link right there.

Certainly it's a large part of it. Once again I think you're under estimating the religious element though.

These people would not listen to a man who said '*&%* the bible, lets blow these people up'.

See, that's my point, he doesn't need to go "Fuck the Bible", all he needs to do is go "Hey let's read the Bible!" and there it is in black and white, whole stories of mindless, unthinkable genocidal slaughter done in the name of God.

That's the problem with using horrible ancient books as a guideline for morality. I think it would be great if Christians dismissed the Bible and just created a new moral framework based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, but because it's a religion they can't because it's the word of God.

But I will concede that Christianity is not particularly vulnerable to such things, and like I said at the start, any given Christian could be the nicest person in the world, but it encourages submission to external sources for morality based purely on authority.

However, if some clever folk come to them and 'show them' that their religion does in 'fact' justify such action, they can let go of this barrier keeping them from vengeance. These people are vulnerable to such things, as they probably desire this vengeance.

Exactly. They are vulnerable because they're angry, but they're also vulnerable because they base their whole worldview on what other people have told them (be it the original authors of the Bible or the priest in the Church).

If there was no religion, it could possibly be easier for people to justify their actions also. I would say in such a moral vacum, people like Stalin or Mao could pretty much dictate how it goes down as it can come down to 'its us or them'.

Did you mean to imply that without religion there is no morality?

IMO, an honest assesment of this matter shows that religion at worst, is the same as any form of governance. It can be abused. What it comes down to IMO, is that people are responsible for their own behaviour. What leads them to their decisions can be bad or good, but ultimately they are the ones that make them.

I disagree. Other forms of governance such as Democracy encourage individual responsibility and put checks and balances on the power of the leadership. Religion does not. Religion invariable requires people to submit to a higher authority, and that higher authority apparently only communicates through other people, so religion essentially boils down to people abrogating their moral standards to the whims and interpretations of other people. Like Stalin, or the Pope. Therein lies the fatal weakness.

midlandsmissus

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Handsome Bob

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Ha ha, I'm glad someone said it.:D

lostexpectation

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

pH

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!!

Absolutely hilarious - candidate for post of the year, as perhaps a single, double or possibly even a triple entendre!

More!

midlandsmissus

pH wrote: »

Absolutely hilarious - candidate for post of the year, as perhaps a single, double or possibly even a triple entendre!

More!

And the best thing is - I didnt mean to do any of them!

The Mad Hatter

lostexpectation wrote: »

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

Good point - to be perfectly honest, I think nationalism is a much bigger problem than religion (though I admit that religion is a symptom of nationalism).

stevencarrwork

Almost all religions forbid the killing of innocent lpeople

Of course, Jesus said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone', emphasising that everybody is guilty of something.

lostexpectation

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Good point - to be perfectly honest, I think nationalism is a much bigger problem than religion (though I admit that religion is a symptom of nationalism).

not a symptom as much, religion is manipulated by nationalist, its about territory and resource.

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

stalin = nationalist, bin laden =nationalism, hitler = nationalism, mao = nationalism, bush = nationalsim, mumbai terrorists = nationalism

Nationalism is indeed an awful thing, but you're overstating it's importance. The 9/11 hijackers came from many different nations, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. Also, here's an out take from Bin Laden's "Letter to America":

Osama Bin Laden wrote:

..you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

...that ultra-nationalistic fool! ^_^

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Zillah,

I think you could break any grown man after a few minutes!! You're not a prosecutor or barrister or something are you?:)

Media student

robindch

lostexpectation wrote: »

not a symptom as much, religion is manipulated by nationalist, its about territory and resource.

It's a bit more subtle than that -- state administrations frequently pay money to religions so that the religions legitimize the state administrations to the population whom the administrations control.

Religion can be thought of as a narrow, uncivic nationalism of the mind, rather than of territory.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Certainly it's a large part of it. Once again I think you're under estimating the religious element though.

What needs to be asked i suppose, is would it happen without religion? When Israel came to town, were the Arab league binded by religion, or p!ssed off at Israels behaviour? Is it religion that caused the Arab worlds hatread of America or was it America's involvement with Israel? IMO, its the latter, and religion is the thing that gave them a common identity. religion is also what gave them identity to people around the world also. 'Sympathise with our Palestinian brothers' etc. Certainly there's religious involvement, but I'd still stop short of it being Causal.

See, that's my point, he doesn't need to go "Fuck the Bible", all he needs to do is go "Hey let's read the Bible!" and there it is in black and white, whole stories of mindless, unthinkable genocidal slaughter done in the name of God.

And thats why its a personal responsability. David Koresh used the bible, Fred Phelps uses it etc etc. Yet, they only get a minority to walk with them. Why is that? Why is it that most Christians see that its nonsense? Yet on the basis that some people are fooled by some charlaton, we should say that the bible is responsible? IMO, its still not a causal link. The causal link is the cult leader. The guy abusing his status amongst a group of people.

That's the problem with using horrible ancient books as a guideline for morality. I think it would be great if Christians dismissed the Bible and just created a new moral framework based entirely on the teachings of Jesus, but because it's a religion they can't because it's the word of God.

rhetoric aside, 'Christians' do have a moral framework based on Jesus' example. An example which included respecting the prophets and messangers of previous generations. In light of christ and in light of the Gentile age, we no longer have God singling out a nation as his own, so there can't be a call to arms etc. We look at the old in light of the new. Thats the christian way. Unfortunately naive, vulnerable, stupid, wicked or ignorant people can be decieved by clever conmen. Any Christian worth their salt would smell a rat in the phelps compound for example.

Christianity encourages submission to external sources for morality based purely on authority.

Which is only a bad thing when the guide is wrong. Like the Good parent/bad parent example I gave to Wicknight. But we know where that discussion could take us:)

Exactly. They are vulnerable because they're angry, but they're also vulnerable because they base their whole worldview on what other people have told them (be it the original authors of the Bible or the priest in the Church).

But i don't think you are looking at the bigger pic tbh. I certainly believe that everyone must hold onto their independance of mind. In the world of religion I sadly concede that this is an issue. There are plenty that like to rush to give their faith to someone else to take care of. Its a bit like an abdication of responsability IMO. However, there is another view that could be held. That being what I mentioned earlier: That maybe religion has actually 'held back 'alot more people from committing attrocities. While some allow themselves be manipulated because of their own desire for vengeance, some maybe stick to a more moderate view in spite of their desire for vengeance. From my own experience, my faith has kept me from violent confrontation. I am shall we say, a well built chap:) and in school would rarely back away from a fight. Even now, if confronted by some trouble maker, my first instinct is to kick his @ass (internet hardman alert:)). However, I act against this instinct and recall the example of the person I call King, namely Jesus Christ.

Did you mean to imply that without religion there is no morality?

Certainly not, but like my point above tries to explain, if i was an atheist i'd have little reason to go against my instincts when it comes to confrontation.

I disagree. Other forms of governance such as Democracy encourage individual responsibility

Believe it or not, thats what Christ encourages too. His law of love free's us from rigid rules. When the apostles picked wheat on the sabath to eat, the pharisee's lambasted him. He brought up the case of King David feeding his men with the produce at the temple when it was needed. His message is one of motivation, namely that love should be our motivation. Rahab, a gentile, was declared righteous after she lied to enemy soldiers about the whereabouts of Israeli spies. Why? She lied, an act which God says Satan his enemy is the father of. But her motivation was righteous.

and put checks and balances on the power of the leadership. Religion does not. Religion invariable requires people to submit to a higher authority, and that higher authority apparently only communicates through other people, so religion essentially boils down to people abrogating their moral standards to the whims and interpretations of other people. Like Stalin, or the Pope. Therein lies the fatal weakness.

I agree that to give over your concience to such leaders is very unwise. With something like Christianity though, IMO, you can see whats on offer from the outset. If you then decide that Popes etc don't mean anything, then you cut out the danger of being manipulated by charismatic abusers of power.

Zillah

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that religious institutions always or even usually cause such atrocities/violent mindsets. What I am saying is that they are neccessary for Stalinesque tyranny. I think we've gotten a little sidetracked from the original point into a discussion of the merits of the Christian worldview, which while interesting is not actually very relevant.

Let me ask you this:
Do you think Stalin, Hitler and Mussollini could have done what they did without forming cults of personality about themselves, filled with religious-like dictates of destiny, obedience and submission to authority?

Do you think there would be organised networks of violent groups using thousands of suicide bombers, such as Al Queda, if they didn't believe they were defending God's word and obeying His laws? (even including everything else, such as Western Imperialism. Of course there would be some violent responses, but international, organised groups using suicide bombers?)

All that said, I don't think we're disagreeing with each other as much as it might seem, based on this:

I agree that to give over your concience to such leaders is very unwise. With something like Christianity though, IMO, you can see whats on offer from the outset. If you then decide that Popes etc don't mean anything, then you cut out the danger of being manipulated by charismatic abusers of power.

I'm not attacking spirituality or supernatural beliefs (not that I don't have other issues with those ^_^), what I am condemning here is the worldly bureacracy organised around the principle of submission to authority. If I remember correctly you're a non specific Christian?

Which is only a bad thing when the guide is wrong. Like the Good parent/bad parent example I gave to Wicknight.

That's the issue though, submitting to a guide leaves one open to the very abuse you seem to condemn. I'm not comfortable with the parent metaphor, because unlike children, I think an adult human being is capable of acting entirely independently in a moral sense. I think they should develop their own morality based upon respect for other human beings, informed by naturalistic empathy and conscience. Such a person would be virtually immune to the manipulations of an ultra-nationalistic dictator, an intolerant Pope or a furious Ayatollah.

In a world filled with such people it is only the lone sociopaths who would cause terrible things to occur, and such individuals would be a problem under any system.

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote: »

Nationalism is indeed an awful thing, but you're overstating it's importance. The 9/11 hijackers came from many different nations, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. Also, here's an out take from Bin Laden's "Letter to America":



...that ultra-nationalistic fool! ^_^



Media student

even the caliphate is nationlist idea, al qaeda was born of egyptian nationalism, any many other muslims joined them, bin laden didn't want foreign troops in saudi arabia, ie nationalism,

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that religious institutions always or even usually cause such atrocities/violent mindsets. What I am saying is that they are neccessary for Stalinesque tyranny.

So you would call Stalin the head of a religious institution? Namely 'the Cult of Stalin'? Equally Hitler, head of the religious institution of Naziism? Personally, I think this reasoning is highly dubious.

Let me ask you this:
Do you think Stalin, Hitler and Mussollini could have done what they did without forming cults of personality about themselves, filled with religious-like dictates of destiny, obedience and submission to authority?

What I'm dubious about is the term 'religious like'. I would agree with that term if it is used to describe how these men made themselves into Godlike figures. However, religion is such a huge word that I don't think can be compartmentalised. Religion can mean my personal belief based on anything from tarot card reading, tealeaf gazing, worshipping Elvis, etc to a belief in the authority of the self. If we accept how broad it is, and that it can have so many different charachteristics, then we can no longer talk about 'religion' in such general terms IMO. We can only deal with each one as we see it. See if its good or bad. Maybe sport is a good analogy. For example.

10 boxers die in a certain year from boxing related injury.

Person 1:'Sport' causes these deaths.

Person 2: But its specifically Boxing, which is a sport, but does not represent all sport.

Person 1: Yes but the problem lies in obeying rules etc as its leaving you open to feel justified for example pummelling someone to near death.

Person 2: But snooker is hardly threatening (maybe to the bored spectator:pac:) Its rules don't involve pummelling another man.

Person 1: What about that time at such and such, where that guy went nuts and whacked yer man with his cue.

Person 2: But was that snookers fault, or that guy being a nutter who happened to abuse the tools of his trade (cue) to hit the other guy.

I understand that this is a simplistic analogy, but I'm trying to convey the scope of the banner.

Do you think there would be organised networks of violent groups using thousands of suicide bombers, such as Al Queda, if they didn't believe they were defending God's word and obeying His laws? (even including everything else, such as Western Imperialism. Of course there would be some violent responses, but international, organised groups using suicide bombers?)

Honestly, no I don't. Their religion has allowed these people to mobilise worldwide, no doubt. Would you blame this religion though? Even though the vast majority of this religion condemn the action? When I lived in Australia, I was subjected to so much Sinn Fein propaganda (I was a Musician playing in Irish bars). Ex-Pats talking of Ireland with her hills and her valleys etc and the rape of our land yadda yadda. Now there were some with Irish heritage that fell for this BS, but most of us saw it was BS. Should I blame Ireland for this? Or the specific group within Ireland for this?

I'm not attacking spirituality or supernatural beliefs (not that I don't have other issues with those ^_^), what I am condemning here is the worldly bureacracy organised around the principle of submission to authority.

I can live with that, though I suppose I submit to the authority of God which is probably the same in principal. Its where the authority lies I think is my main issue.

If I remember correctly you're a non specific Christian?

'Non-specific Christian':D Maybe I am, maybe I'm not:pac: The phrase people usually use for me is 'non-denominational' Christian. i.e. I belong to no formal church etc.

That's the issue though, submitting to a guide leaves one open to the very abuse you seem to condemn.

Not really IMO. I have inspected and chosen to follow this guide. Rather than me being open to abuse, I am already being abused if your opinion is that the guide is bad. As I have no earthly authority who can tell me to take up arms etc. But it works for me. It gives me hope. Following the guidance helps me improve as a person. It has been a huge factor in helping me be happy. It helps give me a fulfilling existance. It tells me to love both neighbour and enemy. So amongst other things, it works for me.

I'm not comfortable with the parent metaphor, because unlike children, I think an adult human being is capable of acting entirely independently in a moral sense. I think they should develop their own morality based upon respect for other human beings, informed by naturalistic empathy and conscience.

So a kind of personal morality? Could you explain 'naturalistic empathy and concience'?

ChocolateSauce

Yeah, I think Bin Laden and his ilk are nationalists for a state which doesn't exist- the next Caliphate.

Honestly, if I had a choice between a world without religion and one without nationalism I'd probably choose the world without nationalism.