Diamondeye wrote:
Um yes, the belief is the point. So you're pretty much in no position to say "wow." Furthermore, seeing as many religions have teachings that are ostensibly from a higher power, one or more might actually be correct. You really don't know.
If I'm in no position to say "wow," neither are you. The belief is certainly the point for you, but you cannot speak for the entirety of religious people. For some, the ritual is the point, for others the dogma, for others the history, for others the social construct. There are a lot of things that go into religion, so much so that you cannot examine the effects of the institution without disassociating it from any one particular benefit or flaw.
Quote:
Quote:
However, religion does far, far more than just speculate about what happens when people die. It also persecutes non-members, and it reinforces a code of conduct which in many cases is antiquated and harmful. The problem in most cases is that most religions relate items of faith as items of fact. It's one thing to express a belief in what happens when you die, or why we're here, or in matters of morality, it's another to express it as fact.
Except that it really doesn't do any of these things. Persecution mostly is because of people and happens for a lot of reasons. As for "antiquated" or "harmful" no, pretty much not. this is entirely of the opinion of people
who don't want to follow it.
You can't claim religion doesn't enforce moral conduct when the ten commandments exist. You also can't claim it when the Catholic church persecutes homosexuality, and condemns abortion.
The Catholic church's view on homosexuality, in particular, is so laughably backwards that I'm surprised that you even attempt to make the point that their views are not antiquated or harmful. You can choose not to take part in some of the more radical or grisly sides of what the church does, but you cannot ignore that the church does do them.
As for the other points about believing in invisible friends and the like, most of that is just insensitive mocking, and should be taken as such. Most people have some things that cannot be proven that they believe in, from simple superstition to religion. The issue isn't necessarily that believing in something you can't prove is bad, but that there is an attempt to attach some sort of social stigma to doing so.
The reason, as best I can tell, for that attempt is that anti-religion crusaders tend to think that's the way you fight against the evils of the church, which is sort of laughable. The vast majority of people who believe don't have a horse in the child-abusing, gay-bashing, right-denying race of any church they're a part of. They just have their faith, and possibly enjoy the local community that faith engenders. The election of a new Pope has very little impact on American Catholics, unless, of course, they choose to be impacted.
This is why I argue consistently for the recognition that the church does both good and bad, much in the same way I argue that America does both good and bad to patriots. While you can perceive any organization as good or evil, the reality is that most organizations are both, and that you can certainly join such an organization for all the good it does, that doesn't preclude you from speaking out against the evil. The Catholic church, in particular, has a very, very long-standing policy of sticking their fingers in their ears and singing songs whenever anyone wants to talk to them about the awful things that people are doing in their name. That particular policy is something I abhor. The child abuse was perpetrated by men, and I prefer to hold those men responsible for their acts, rather than the church itself. However, I can hold the church responsible for what they've done to protect those men and ignore the problem.
If a religion I was a part of was being used, either directly or indirectly, to commit unspeakable acts upon children, I would be loudly crying to condemn and castigate those who would perpetrate such things in the name of that which I believed in. The fact that the Catholic church doesn't defend its own faith in such a manner is something that strikes many, particularly non-believers, as wrong. Whether you are of the faith or not, that is a criticism that the Catholic church should not be able to ignore.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
