Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
In the article that cHris brought up the victims were part of his family. I think justice has been served, whether or not it is European code of ethics or morales or American. you take lives. To me he got off lightly he did not get executed, but just the permanence of his jail cell.
Elaine wrote: "Yes, but his actual release would be determinant on whether or not he would be likely or capable of harming someone again if he was released. "
And, ... this would be the kicker, wouldn't it? For several different reasons.
First, should it matter? Someone murders five people. Should it matter, years later, if "we" feel he's been rehabilitated and won't commit another murder? He still brutally murdered five human beings. What is justice? What is moral in that case? (By the way, I'm wondering if this court considers what's moral for the victims or do they just focus on the offenders ... after all, the victims are dead and don't have a voice or a lawyer.)
But, even more interesting, how do we determine whether or not he'd be likely or capable of murder in the future?
Back in the '80's, Vermont was all kinds of proud. We were rehabilitating sex offenders. Hold the presses. We had group therapy in prison and all that. Cutting edge. We were going to show everyone how to do it! There was a guy named Edwin Town(e). Corrections and his doctors said he was the perfect prisoner/patient. They were almost positive he would never, ever, reoffend. Cured! Shortly after being released, early, he brutally raped and murdered a 15/16 year old girl on her way to school. They couldn't figure out how they were wrong. They had a system. They were so pleased with their work with him. How could they have been wrong? How indeed? His victim, Paulette Crickmore (sp), never got to go to prom, graduate, get a job, fall in love, etc.... All because government officials and doctors were sure he wouldn't reoffend and let him out early. Was it moral to give him a chance? Moral for her?
Further, I recently heard that a ridiculously high percentage of murderers or mass murderers have a different brain configuration and/or different parts of the brain light up than light up with the rest of us. Dang? So, what does that mean? Let's say we test this guy and he has the "Oh, my gravy! He's crazy likely to be a murderer!" brain.... What do we do? Keep him in prison. But, .... You know where I'm going with this. Right? What do we do about people who have this brain difference but haven't murdered, that we're aware. Should we lock them up before they commit murder? (Thinking of the Tom Cruise movie years ago with the wall and balls. I think there were balls. Right?) People would likely say that would be wrong. Right? To lock someone up without their having committed a crime. But, .... What's moral and what's immoral? Knowing, via scientific testing, that someone as a 9 in 10 chance of becoming a murderer and waiting to see what happens or locking the person up preemptively?
Coming full circle, in all of the time and thought this court has given and countless legal minds and philosophers have given to the rights of prisoners and what is moral and humane regarding their status, I find myself wondering just who is thinking about what is moral and humane and just when it comes to all of the people these prisoners butcher.
And, ... this would be the kicker, wouldn't it? For several different reasons.
First, should it matter? Someone murders five people. Should it matter, years later, if "we" feel he's been rehabilitated and won't commit another murder? He still brutally murdered five human beings. What is justice? What is moral in that case? (By the way, I'm wondering if this court considers what's moral for the victims or do they just focus on the offenders ... after all, the victims are dead and don't have a voice or a lawyer.)
But, even more interesting, how do we determine whether or not he'd be likely or capable of murder in the future?
Back in the '80's, Vermont was all kinds of proud. We were rehabilitating sex offenders. Hold the presses. We had group therapy in prison and all that. Cutting edge. We were going to show everyone how to do it! There was a guy named Edwin Town(e). Corrections and his doctors said he was the perfect prisoner/patient. They were almost positive he would never, ever, reoffend. Cured! Shortly after being released, early, he brutally raped and murdered a 15/16 year old girl on her way to school. They couldn't figure out how they were wrong. They had a system. They were so pleased with their work with him. How could they have been wrong? How indeed? His victim, Paulette Crickmore (sp), never got to go to prom, graduate, get a job, fall in love, etc.... All because government officials and doctors were sure he wouldn't reoffend and let him out early. Was it moral to give him a chance? Moral for her?
Further, I recently heard that a ridiculously high percentage of murderers or mass murderers have a different brain configuration and/or different parts of the brain light up than light up with the rest of us. Dang? So, what does that mean? Let's say we test this guy and he has the "Oh, my gravy! He's crazy likely to be a murderer!" brain.... What do we do? Keep him in prison. But, .... You know where I'm going with this. Right? What do we do about people who have this brain difference but haven't murdered, that we're aware. Should we lock them up before they commit murder? (Thinking of the Tom Cruise movie years ago with the wall and balls. I think there were balls. Right?) People would likely say that would be wrong. Right? To lock someone up without their having committed a crime. But, .... What's moral and what's immoral? Knowing, via scientific testing, that someone as a 9 in 10 chance of becoming a murderer and waiting to see what happens or locking the person up preemptively?
Coming full circle, in all of the time and thought this court has given and countless legal minds and philosophers have given to the rights of prisoners and what is moral and humane regarding their status, I find myself wondering just who is thinking about what is moral and humane and just when it comes to all of the people these prisoners butcher.
Shannon wrote: People would likely say that would be wrong. Right? To lock someone up without their having committed a crime. But, .... What's moral and what's immoral? Knowing, via scientific testing, that someone as a 9 in 10 chance of becoming a murderer and waiting to see what happens or locking the person up preemptively?I read this section several times to make sure I understood you but please clarify. Are you suggesting that because there is a 9 out of 10 chance a person will become a murderer, based on a scientific test, that person should be incarcerated? Innocent before proven guilty would then become guilty before crime committed!
Elaine I think Shannon was retelling the plot to the Tom Cruise movie" Minority Report" where the police can tell when a crime is going to happen in the future and arrest the person before they commit the crime. Interesting movie.
Minority Report! That was it! Thanks, Mary.
Was I suggesting it happen, Elaine? No, not exactly.
However, when I heard the report a few weeks or a month ago, about this brain scan, it chilled me. I actually went over the article with my students. Asked the question.... Should we do anything with this information? Every single one, in one class, said we should give everyone the test and incarcerate everyone whose brain lights up in this way. Whoa, whoa, whoa .... Then, we talked it out. Discussing historical and literary references. Right and wrong. Morality. Most agreed, in the end, that people shouldn't be punished for crimes they hadn't committed. But, .... They were all uncomfortable.
What did I mean? Well, you were talking about a murderer and whether or not he should be considered for release. Would he reoffend? Right? That was the standard. What chance was there that he would or could commit another murder? Yes? Okay. How would we determine that? The same way Vermont's criminal justice system determined that Edwin Towne wouldn't reoffend? That didn't work out that well. And, ... there's a whole host of other cases in which that didn't work out that well. This brain scan? So, if the brain lights up in ways that say he's a murderer, would we keep this man in prison forever, regardless of whether or not a body of people think it's super mean and goes against his human rights? If we start using those tests in that way, is there a risk that they be used preemptively? Would that be moral or immoral? Finally, when do we actually think about and discuss the human rights of those who are butchered versus those who are incarcerated?
Weighty stuff. Without easy answers, in my opinion.
Personally? Even though this test is available, I don't think people should be given the test. Not in general. Not unless and until there's a way of "fixing" the brains that light up in the "I'm a freaky mass murderer" way. I mean, .... What, exactly, would we do with that information? If we had that kind of information, would it be immoral to be aware of the overwhelming odds and do nothing? I think it would be. Of course, I also think it would be immoral to lock someone up prior to mass murder. But, all in all, it's a conundrum.
Was I suggesting it happen, Elaine? No, not exactly.
However, when I heard the report a few weeks or a month ago, about this brain scan, it chilled me. I actually went over the article with my students. Asked the question.... Should we do anything with this information? Every single one, in one class, said we should give everyone the test and incarcerate everyone whose brain lights up in this way. Whoa, whoa, whoa .... Then, we talked it out. Discussing historical and literary references. Right and wrong. Morality. Most agreed, in the end, that people shouldn't be punished for crimes they hadn't committed. But, .... They were all uncomfortable.
What did I mean? Well, you were talking about a murderer and whether or not he should be considered for release. Would he reoffend? Right? That was the standard. What chance was there that he would or could commit another murder? Yes? Okay. How would we determine that? The same way Vermont's criminal justice system determined that Edwin Towne wouldn't reoffend? That didn't work out that well. And, ... there's a whole host of other cases in which that didn't work out that well. This brain scan? So, if the brain lights up in ways that say he's a murderer, would we keep this man in prison forever, regardless of whether or not a body of people think it's super mean and goes against his human rights? If we start using those tests in that way, is there a risk that they be used preemptively? Would that be moral or immoral? Finally, when do we actually think about and discuss the human rights of those who are butchered versus those who are incarcerated?
Weighty stuff. Without easy answers, in my opinion.
Personally? Even though this test is available, I don't think people should be given the test. Not in general. Not unless and until there's a way of "fixing" the brains that light up in the "I'm a freaky mass murderer" way. I mean, .... What, exactly, would we do with that information? If we had that kind of information, would it be immoral to be aware of the overwhelming odds and do nothing? I think it would be. Of course, I also think it would be immoral to lock someone up prior to mass murder. But, all in all, it's a conundrum.
Thanks, Mary. I haven't seen or heard of this movie. Nonetheless, the moral dilemma involved certainly is an interesting one and definitely worthy of discussion.
Shannon, how old are your students? From their reaction to your question I would guess that they are in their early to mid-teens.
Elaine wrote: "Shannon, how old are your students? From their reaction to your question I would guess that they are in their early to mid-teens."
;)
They're 10th graders. However, I can see certain adults, some in politics, reacting in the same way, I'm afraid. Especially when I think about the reactions to terrorism in the US. How people were talking after the Boston bombing... What the government could have, would have, should have known.... Some of the discussion that we've had over the years regarding the Patriot Act, under Bush, and the NSA data mining, under Obama. I can, almost, see people jumping all over this kind of technology. Calls morality into play. For sure.
;)
They're 10th graders. However, I can see certain adults, some in politics, reacting in the same way, I'm afraid. Especially when I think about the reactions to terrorism in the US. How people were talking after the Boston bombing... What the government could have, would have, should have known.... Some of the discussion that we've had over the years regarding the Patriot Act, under Bush, and the NSA data mining, under Obama. I can, almost, see people jumping all over this kind of technology. Calls morality into play. For sure.
What about the old question about being given the chance to kill Hitler pre-1939. Before all the atrocities. Do you murder him?
Speaking of NSA data mining...someone sent me this email. If it wasn't so possible it might be funny!http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/scre...
Mary wrote: "What about the old question about being given the chance to kill Hitler pre-1939. Before all the atrocities. Do you murder him?"
Is it a moral responsibility to stop genocide? To stop the rape, torture, imprisonment, and slaughter of millions? Is it immoral not to stop such atrocities? If one's only method of immediately and effectively stopping such crimes is to murder the architect and/or coldblooded killer, would that be moral or immoral?
What do you think, Mary?
I think it's immoral to assassinate genocidal maniacs. However, there are people who would commit an immoral act in order to save millions. Some would take on that stain in order to do right by others. When this question came up in high school and college, I thought I'd likely kill Hitler ... if it weren't for space and time ... knowing, based on my beliefs, that it would be committing a horrible wrong in order to do what was right, in my mind and heart, for millions of people. I, for one, wish the damned briefcase had been placed on the other side of the divide under the table.
Is it a moral responsibility to stop genocide? To stop the rape, torture, imprisonment, and slaughter of millions? Is it immoral not to stop such atrocities? If one's only method of immediately and effectively stopping such crimes is to murder the architect and/or coldblooded killer, would that be moral or immoral?
What do you think, Mary?
I think it's immoral to assassinate genocidal maniacs. However, there are people who would commit an immoral act in order to save millions. Some would take on that stain in order to do right by others. When this question came up in high school and college, I thought I'd likely kill Hitler ... if it weren't for space and time ... knowing, based on my beliefs, that it would be committing a horrible wrong in order to do what was right, in my mind and heart, for millions of people. I, for one, wish the damned briefcase had been placed on the other side of the divide under the table.
Maria wrote: "Speaking of NSA data mining...someone sent me this email. If it wasn't so possible it might be funny!
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/scre..."
Ahahaha....
Makes me want to make all purchases, etc... with cash!
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/scre..."
Ahahaha....
Makes me want to make all purchases, etc... with cash!
Robin wrote: To me he got off lightly he did not get executed, but just the permanence of his jail cell. "
... but the point was that because of his 'human rights' he could be let out of jail at sometime in the future.
Shannon - I think it's like the right-to-lifers feeling like it's ok to stop what they consider to be murder of fetuses - by setting off a bomb and killing everyone in an abortion clinic. Murder to stop murder.
Like dropping a bomb on an entire city just to kill the enemy soldiers, never mind that it kills children, the elderly, etc also.
Is any of it justified? Can it be considered collateral damage?
Deep thoughts.
Rain wrote: "i think science is a bit limited seeing as it tends to want to give a reason for everything,not everything has a clear reason.like why of all people did i have to be the one to get bitten by that d..."What!? This was a very strange thing to read. Science does not "want" anything. Science is a methodology for explaining the world around us using observation. It does not try to assign "meaning". Why do bad things happen to good people is not a question science tries to answer, but religion certainly does.
Don't you see that religion "justifying the unjustifiable" is exactly what you accuse science of doing, assigning meaning (or a reason) to everything.
I think religion, by TRYING to justify the unjustifiable, helps some people cope with things that would otherwise cause them to jump off a cliff. Like why their child died, why a drunk driver caused their husband to be a quadraplegic, why they lost their job with 5 kids and a mortgage.... no matter how misplaced it is, at least it helps some people cope with bad things.
And the crazy notion of a big family reunion in heaven one day, even though it's ridiculous, at least gives some people a (false) hope that they will see their dead loved ones again.
In that way, it's rather harmless, in my opinion, if it gives some people comfort. As long as they don't try to push it down my throat...
Glenn wrote: Don't you see that religion "justifying the unjustifiable" is exactly what you accuse science of doing, assigning meaning (or a reason) to everything. .."
If you can justify something then it would no longer be unjustifiable.
There is a reason for everything.
CHriS, What would the reason be for a 3 year old to be struck with leukemia and die?
How do you justify it if a pedophile baby rapist and an upstanding father of small children are both on plane that crashes, and the rapist survives but the father doesn't?
Rather than having a reason, aren't some things just chance?
Maria wrote: How do you justify it if a pedophile baby rapist and an upstanding father of small children are both on plane that crashes, and the rapist survives but the father doesn't?..."
It could be to do with what seat they were in at the time and what caused the crash.
Maria wrote: What would the reason be for a 3 year old to be struck with leukemia and die?
The reason would be that abnormal cells grow inside bone marrow and interfere with the production of healthy blood cells.....
Maria wrote: "Shannon -
I think it's like the right-to-lifers feeling like it's ok to stop what they consider to be murder of fetuses - by setting off a bomb and killing everyone in an abortion clinic. Murder..."
Fortunately, right-to-lifers haven't bombed anything or killed anyone in forever. Glad about that.
Bombing cities to kill soldiers.... Wish that didn't happen. Also wish grown men didn't use women and babies as human shields. Not sure those wishes will come true any time soon.
Hitler.... How many millions did he kill?
If I could go back in time, which I can't, there'd be a high probability that I'd assassinate him. I'd at least do everything I could to do so. However, I promise you there wouldn't be collateral damage ... or I'd not do it. That would be a wrong, collateral damage, that I couldn't stand. But, just Hitler. One man for over ten million.
Would assassinating a man who killed over 10 million people be justified?
Yeah. I think it would be. Would it also be immoral? Yes.
I think it's like the right-to-lifers feeling like it's ok to stop what they consider to be murder of fetuses - by setting off a bomb and killing everyone in an abortion clinic. Murder..."
Fortunately, right-to-lifers haven't bombed anything or killed anyone in forever. Glad about that.
Bombing cities to kill soldiers.... Wish that didn't happen. Also wish grown men didn't use women and babies as human shields. Not sure those wishes will come true any time soon.
Hitler.... How many millions did he kill?
If I could go back in time, which I can't, there'd be a high probability that I'd assassinate him. I'd at least do everything I could to do so. However, I promise you there wouldn't be collateral damage ... or I'd not do it. That would be a wrong, collateral damage, that I couldn't stand. But, just Hitler. One man for over ten million.
Would assassinating a man who killed over 10 million people be justified?
Yeah. I think it would be. Would it also be immoral? Yes.
Maria wrote: "And the crazy notion of a big family reunion in heaven one day, even though it's ridiculous, at least gives some people a (false) hope that they will see their dead loved ones again. ."
Why is it crazy and ridiculous? The idea that there might be something beyond the world we live in and define?
Why is it crazy and ridiculous? The idea that there might be something beyond the world we live in and define?
Shannon, I too would assassinate hitler - and yes it would be immoral, but also totally justified.I think that people living on in heaven after they die is not true. Just my opinion. I think that when the bible says that the dead are conscious of nothing and when they die their thoughts perish- I agree. As dust you were, to dust you shall return. I just have a hard time believing in life after death.
Religion normally creates problems.Science normally solves problems.
Both are misused by mankind.
It would be nice to live in a world where people don't try and impose either their religion or science on us if we are perfectly happy without it.
Pandora wrote: "Actually there is a third part missing. In my own philoshpy in order to have a good society you need to build it like a triangle. The base is religion, the two sides are science and philosphy. I..."But love and religion are polar opposites. Religion is about hating others who are different from you. Three words: Westboro Baptist Church. I rest my case.
Paul wrote: "Religion normally creates problems.
Science normally solves problems.
Both are misused by mankind.
It would be nice to live in a world where people don't try and impose either their religion or sci..."
Religion has caused problems and does cause problems, but I'm not sure that one can say religion, in totality, normally causes problems.
I mean, I get what you're saying, in that ... that tends to be the general consensus of many of the posters on this thread. Religion tends to be, well, evil.
That, though, is a gross overgeneralization that, interestingly, is believed and perpetuated by many people who value logic, unless it has to do with religion.
Such a statement rather brands all faiths as one, does it not? Do all religions normally create problems? Each and every one. Have all religions, historically, normally created problems? Further, it ignores the good done by religions. For example, in my area, the churches feed the hungry and house the homeless, almost exclusively.
While some here have claimed that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with local church folk, I find I disagree. It seems to be too much like having one's cake and eating it too. When it comes to people claiming to believe and have faith without religion, many of the non-believers here cry foul. It's religion. However, when one outlines the good done by religion, those same people cry foul again. No, no, it's just the local folk. Sorry. It's either religion or it isn't.
So, it would seem to me, being willing to see the total picture versus what fits the narrative I cleave to, that many religions have caused both problems and benefits to humanity.
Science normally solves problems.
Both are misused by mankind.
It would be nice to live in a world where people don't try and impose either their religion or sci..."
Religion has caused problems and does cause problems, but I'm not sure that one can say religion, in totality, normally causes problems.
I mean, I get what you're saying, in that ... that tends to be the general consensus of many of the posters on this thread. Religion tends to be, well, evil.
That, though, is a gross overgeneralization that, interestingly, is believed and perpetuated by many people who value logic, unless it has to do with religion.
Such a statement rather brands all faiths as one, does it not? Do all religions normally create problems? Each and every one. Have all religions, historically, normally created problems? Further, it ignores the good done by religions. For example, in my area, the churches feed the hungry and house the homeless, almost exclusively.
While some here have claimed that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with local church folk, I find I disagree. It seems to be too much like having one's cake and eating it too. When it comes to people claiming to believe and have faith without religion, many of the non-believers here cry foul. It's religion. However, when one outlines the good done by religion, those same people cry foul again. No, no, it's just the local folk. Sorry. It's either religion or it isn't.
So, it would seem to me, being willing to see the total picture versus what fits the narrative I cleave to, that many religions have caused both problems and benefits to humanity.
Leiah wrote: "But love and religion are polar opposites. Religion is about hating others who are different from you. Three words: Westboro Baptist Church. I rest my case. "
Wow!
Religion = Hate
Religion = Westboro Baptist Church
Interesting world view.
Wow!
Religion = Hate
Religion = Westboro Baptist Church
Interesting world view.
I am by no means an arbiter to anything like this but if there is no god, is there anyone who can assume a post so sensitive as the arbiter.i favour neither of the two,but the fact that 'science is the new religion' can't be ignored.science with the undenied virtue of morality will be absolutely accepted from my side.
Some people are kind, without doubt. But I don't believe that has anything to do with religion, per se. I am very kind to people, give to charities, etc. I am not even close to being religious. When I look at religion, I see young girls kicked out of their homes for becoming pregnant while the beloved boys go along as nothing happened. I see gay bashing, black bashing, "not my religion" bashing. I see churches, rolling in wealth, run by ancient old men with no concept of the realities of life, wearing rich robes and eating from golden plates, while their congregations goes without food. I see people who will burn down clinics and murder doctors in the name of pro-life, while refusing to extend succor, aid, medication, hospitalization or child rearing to any of the unwanted children who are forced into brutal and sometimes deadly circumstances by being forced to be born into situations where they are unwanted and often hated. I see the babies sold off to porn and snuff film makers, drug addicts selling their children for drugs while the church stands by in their little alters and preach about how good and holy they are, while turning a blind eye to atrocity. I see burning libraries and pogroms, mass slaughter and cultural devastation, slavery and stolen lands, and the priests who came with the soldiers everywhere, bringing pox blankets and sanctified murder in their wake. Racks and chains and starving children, women dying in childbirth or beaten and burned by their sanctimonious families. I see young girls mutilated to deny them sexual pleasure, and young girls married off as children to old men of the church. I see my friend, who was taken from the reservation as a child by the church, and given to a church family so that the husband could use her for a sex object, since his wife was starkers and couldn't be allowed to have children --- so of course he needed _someone_ to stick it to. I see my own life. And I ask again - really? Benefits to humanity?
Interesting world view? Nah. Realistic world view.
Leiah wrote: "Some people are kind, without doubt. But I don't believe that has anything to do with religion, per se. I am very kind to people, give to charities, etc. I am not even close to being religious. Whe..."
So, when it comes to churches feeding the hungry, you see that as the good in people; you don't see it as having anything to do with religion. Yet, when it comes to seeing bad, you see it as having to do with religion. Again, ... cake. Having it and eating it.
Further, you give the most extremist examples, which are things that have happened in the past (murders at abortion clinics) and things that happen now, human trafficking, and cite nothing else. I find that to be an interesting view.
Benefits to humanity? As I already said, the churches in my community feed the hungry and house the homeless, almost exclusively. My guess? It's not only my community.
To say that has nothing to do with religion but to say slavery is about religion seems skewed and, frankly, convenient. It feeds into the idea that religion is the root of all evil. Not sure if you believe that or not.
Regarding human trafficking, .... This is actually something that I care about deeply. I've read about it, attended a conference, supported legislation, etc.... Your explanation leaves a lot of things out.
Many of the children sold into the hell of human trafficking are actually loved and wanted. To say otherwise is .... The blame for their sale? Religion? Not so much. Economics. Babies being sold off to porn while churches stand by their little alters and preach about how holy they are ... your words ... well, .... The United Methodist Church via the UMW, United Methodist Women, began fighting human trafficking, specifically regarding the sex trade, back in the early '90's. At least. Before a lot of people, here at least, would even talk about it. Fought it through money, programs, etc....
In addition, I also see burning, pogroms, slaughter, etc.... And, .... I'm aware that the majority of such had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with natural resources and greed.
Yes, Leiah, many religions have authored wrongs and some have authored atrocities.
To leave it at that, ... to talk solely of little alters and the holy turning a blind eye and only to talk of that ... turns a blind eye to the truth.
And, by doing that, we change nothing.
That.... That's the kicker.
Perhaps, for example, we should work against sex tourism. I know I tried to support one of the Kennedy's (irony) when he tried to push through a law regarding sex tourism, Americans who go abroad to certain impoverished countries in order to have sex with child prostitutes, forced into prostitution due to poverty. Perhaps we could look into the laws on the books, speak out against the UN when, every few years, it's reported that UN officials are having sex in fields with child prostitutes, donate money to organizations that fight such horrors, etc....
So, when it comes to churches feeding the hungry, you see that as the good in people; you don't see it as having anything to do with religion. Yet, when it comes to seeing bad, you see it as having to do with religion. Again, ... cake. Having it and eating it.
Further, you give the most extremist examples, which are things that have happened in the past (murders at abortion clinics) and things that happen now, human trafficking, and cite nothing else. I find that to be an interesting view.
Benefits to humanity? As I already said, the churches in my community feed the hungry and house the homeless, almost exclusively. My guess? It's not only my community.
To say that has nothing to do with religion but to say slavery is about religion seems skewed and, frankly, convenient. It feeds into the idea that religion is the root of all evil. Not sure if you believe that or not.
Regarding human trafficking, .... This is actually something that I care about deeply. I've read about it, attended a conference, supported legislation, etc.... Your explanation leaves a lot of things out.
Many of the children sold into the hell of human trafficking are actually loved and wanted. To say otherwise is .... The blame for their sale? Religion? Not so much. Economics. Babies being sold off to porn while churches stand by their little alters and preach about how holy they are ... your words ... well, .... The United Methodist Church via the UMW, United Methodist Women, began fighting human trafficking, specifically regarding the sex trade, back in the early '90's. At least. Before a lot of people, here at least, would even talk about it. Fought it through money, programs, etc....
In addition, I also see burning, pogroms, slaughter, etc.... And, .... I'm aware that the majority of such had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with natural resources and greed.
Yes, Leiah, many religions have authored wrongs and some have authored atrocities.
To leave it at that, ... to talk solely of little alters and the holy turning a blind eye and only to talk of that ... turns a blind eye to the truth.
And, by doing that, we change nothing.
That.... That's the kicker.
Perhaps, for example, we should work against sex tourism. I know I tried to support one of the Kennedy's (irony) when he tried to push through a law regarding sex tourism, Americans who go abroad to certain impoverished countries in order to have sex with child prostitutes, forced into prostitution due to poverty. Perhaps we could look into the laws on the books, speak out against the UN when, every few years, it's reported that UN officials are having sex in fields with child prostitutes, donate money to organizations that fight such horrors, etc....
Leiah wrote: "Pandora wrote: "Actually there is a third part missing. In my own philoshpy in order to have a good society you need to build it like a triangle. The base is religion, the two sides are science ..."Since religion is a form of philosophy that triangle only actually has two sides.
Or it has three sides, two of which are made of the same stuff.
Leiah wrote: "Interesting world view? Nah. Realistic world view."You can have both, as the real world is pretty interesting.
The question seems to be: do the good deeds of religious organizations outweigh the evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion or by its religious leaders?
Elaine wrote: "The question seems to be: do the good deeds of religious organizations outweigh the evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion or by its religious leaders?"Since religion declares itself the moral authority, I don't see how the good can outweigh the bad.
Travis, do you see any good coming from religious organizations? As an atheist and I strongly believe that religion should be kept as far away as possible from politics education, and the governance of a country; however, certain religious groups, because of their beliefs, take care of the poor, look after the needy, provide companionship to the lonely, etc.
Elaine wrote: "Travis, do you see any good coming from religious organizations? As an atheist and I strongly believe that religion should be kept as far away as possible from politics education, and the governan..."There are some religious charities and whatnot out there that are doing good.
My post concerns only the idea of trying to use the good a religion does to outweigh/balance/justify the bad.
If religion claims to be the moral authority than there's no way you can then have the weighing the good/bad argument.
It's the same with the cherry picking the holy book of choice argument. If everybody gets to pick and choose then why follow it at all?
If religion is allowed to get away with a certain number of bad things than how does it get to claim to be the absolute authority?
Elaine wrote: "The question seems to be: do the good deeds of religious organizations outweigh the evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion or by its religious leaders?"
No. I think the question was whether or not the statements were accurate or extremist exaggerations.
Religion normally causes problems.
Religion equals hate.
That was the question at hand.
No. I think the question was whether or not the statements were accurate or extremist exaggerations.
Religion normally causes problems.
Religion equals hate.
That was the question at hand.
.Yet another rant about religion………..Blame religion....you might as well blame politics...or what about just blaming mankind.
After all what is the point of mankind. According to science we are only here by accident; an accident that may never happen again regardless of how many new universes come and go in how ever many billions of years.
With an over populated planet like earth is it just wishful thinking to think we will all get on with each other and eradicate evil.
If you did not have 'bad' how could you judge 'good'.
It is not religion or politics or what ever, that does bad things, it is man. Maybe man will say it is done in the name of religion, but that is not religion.
Maybe what really is to blame is globalisation.
Travis wrote: "Since religion declares itself the moral authority, I don't see how the good can outweigh the bad. "
Do all religions claim themselves to be moral authorities?
Do we define ourselves or all people based on only certain acts, sometimes past acts?
With regard to the last question, I consider myself to be a very honest person. People who know me consider me to be honest. Those people have said things like, "Shannon never lies."
Several, several years ago, when I was in high school, I told several lies. I told my parents I added wood to the wood stove when I got home from school, even though I didn't. I lied to them about my grades in math on several occasions. I lied about whether or not I had homework. And, lest you think this example is silly .... A boy tried to do something to me once. I got away before it happened, since I fought. People knew something had happened. My parents. The kids I went to school with. I lied. I said nothing happened. My parents thought of him as a son. I protected them. His father would have beaten him senseless and his mother never would have forgiven his father for that. I protected them. The girls I was friends with would have told everyone. The boys? One of the boys guessed it had to do with this particular boy ... said he'd kill him if he'd touched me. I didn't think he'd really kill him but wasn't sure. In a bad fight, things can happen. And, ... he had a future, the boy who wanted to defend me. He wanted to go to college and needed scholarships, being raised by a single mother. I couldn't let him get arrested for assault or worse. So, I protected him. Nothing happened. That's what I said. Over and over. The boy in question, when a new girl moved in our senior year, did something very bad to her. Unintended consequence. I protected, or thought I protected, my parents, his parents, and Peter with my lies. In the end, a little girl, younger than us and innocent, got hurt. Badly.
Despite the fact that I've lived the rest of my life honestly, refusing to tell lies, and have, basically, made it my mission in life to protect others, should that all be forfeit?
I have this dark thing in my past, after all. Should I only be judged on that?
Is that how we want to be judged? Is that how we truly judge ourselves and others? (If so, I'm guessing those of you who are Americans are all Independents. You'd not be Democrats given their long history of racism and racist acts. Right? Including, recently, sponsoring a man who used to be a member of the KKK.)
Or, do some of us only judge religion that way?
Do all religions claim themselves to be moral authorities?
Do we define ourselves or all people based on only certain acts, sometimes past acts?
With regard to the last question, I consider myself to be a very honest person. People who know me consider me to be honest. Those people have said things like, "Shannon never lies."
Several, several years ago, when I was in high school, I told several lies. I told my parents I added wood to the wood stove when I got home from school, even though I didn't. I lied to them about my grades in math on several occasions. I lied about whether or not I had homework. And, lest you think this example is silly .... A boy tried to do something to me once. I got away before it happened, since I fought. People knew something had happened. My parents. The kids I went to school with. I lied. I said nothing happened. My parents thought of him as a son. I protected them. His father would have beaten him senseless and his mother never would have forgiven his father for that. I protected them. The girls I was friends with would have told everyone. The boys? One of the boys guessed it had to do with this particular boy ... said he'd kill him if he'd touched me. I didn't think he'd really kill him but wasn't sure. In a bad fight, things can happen. And, ... he had a future, the boy who wanted to defend me. He wanted to go to college and needed scholarships, being raised by a single mother. I couldn't let him get arrested for assault or worse. So, I protected him. Nothing happened. That's what I said. Over and over. The boy in question, when a new girl moved in our senior year, did something very bad to her. Unintended consequence. I protected, or thought I protected, my parents, his parents, and Peter with my lies. In the end, a little girl, younger than us and innocent, got hurt. Badly.
Despite the fact that I've lived the rest of my life honestly, refusing to tell lies, and have, basically, made it my mission in life to protect others, should that all be forfeit?
I have this dark thing in my past, after all. Should I only be judged on that?
Is that how we want to be judged? Is that how we truly judge ourselves and others? (If so, I'm guessing those of you who are Americans are all Independents. You'd not be Democrats given their long history of racism and racist acts. Right? Including, recently, sponsoring a man who used to be a member of the KKK.)
Or, do some of us only judge religion that way?
cHriS wrote: "With an over populated planet like earth is it just wishful thinking to think we will all get on with each other and eradicate evil.
If you did not have 'bad' how could you judge 'good'.
It is not religion or politics or what ever, that does bad things, it is man. Maybe man will say it is done in the name of religion, but that is not religion.
Maybe what really is to blame is globalisation. "
Are you reading the new Dan Brown book? ;)
I am. Ehhh.... Actually switching to the new James Rollins book for a bit.
Anyway, the Brown book is reading like an ehhh suspense. However, there is a deal about overpopulation. Science fighting to save everyone, which in part leads to overpopulation, and .... Makes the idea of overpopulation frighten me a bit!
If you did not have 'bad' how could you judge 'good'.
It is not religion or politics or what ever, that does bad things, it is man. Maybe man will say it is done in the name of religion, but that is not religion.
Maybe what really is to blame is globalisation. "
Are you reading the new Dan Brown book? ;)
I am. Ehhh.... Actually switching to the new James Rollins book for a bit.
Anyway, the Brown book is reading like an ehhh suspense. However, there is a deal about overpopulation. Science fighting to save everyone, which in part leads to overpopulation, and .... Makes the idea of overpopulation frighten me a bit!
Shannon wrote: Are you reading the new Dan Brown book? ;)."
No I've not read that one yet. I have had 'The Lost Symbol' for a year now and have not got around to reading it.
For me 'Angels and Demons' was his best. How does the new one, or even The Lost Symbol compare.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Are you reading the new Dan Brown book? ;)
."
No I've not read that one yet. I have had 'The Lost Symbol' for a year now and have not got around to reading it.
For me 'Angels and ..."
Oh, yuck! The Lost Symbol was horrible! Times a million. Sorry you picked it up. No real redeeming qualities, that book. Most of the people I know who read it also hated it. Quite a disappointment.
The newest.... I'm only about 100 pages in. Trying to remember back to Angels. Don't think it's as good. But, it's definitely better than the last. Getting me to read Dante's along with it. And, ... I was in the bookstore the other day and saw people checking out the original. If Brown gets people to read a classic and check out art history, I think it's a good thing. But, ultimately, it's reading like an average suspense, but not the best suspense I've ever read, for sure.
."
No I've not read that one yet. I have had 'The Lost Symbol' for a year now and have not got around to reading it.
For me 'Angels and ..."
Oh, yuck! The Lost Symbol was horrible! Times a million. Sorry you picked it up. No real redeeming qualities, that book. Most of the people I know who read it also hated it. Quite a disappointment.
The newest.... I'm only about 100 pages in. Trying to remember back to Angels. Don't think it's as good. But, it's definitely better than the last. Getting me to read Dante's along with it. And, ... I was in the bookstore the other day and saw people checking out the original. If Brown gets people to read a classic and check out art history, I think it's a good thing. But, ultimately, it's reading like an average suspense, but not the best suspense I've ever read, for sure.
Shannon wrote: The newest.... I'm only about 100 pages in. Trying to remember back to Angels. Don't think it's as good. But, it's definitely better than the last."Well the Lost Symbol has just gone to the bottom of my reading pile and I will wait for the paperback version of his new one; unless you tell me not to bother once you've finished it. :)
cHriS wrote: "Well the Lost Symbol has just gone to the bottom of my reading pile and I will wait for the paperback version of his new one; unless you tell me not to bother once you've finished it. :)
"
Will let you know. ;)
"
Will let you know. ;)
Shannon wrote: I'm only about 100 pages in..."I use to have this 'thing' that because I have paid for a book I must finish it.
And because I can only have one book on the go at any one time; if the book does not hold my interest I would just not pick it up again for days or weeks.
Eventually I would either force myself to finish it or I would abandon it altogether.
Now, I give each book 100-120 pages and if the author has not given me a page turner by then, I stop reading and start a new book.
cHriS wrote: "Now, I give each book 100-120 pages and if the author has not given me a page turner by then, I stop reading and start a new book. "
Yes, I've been doing that a lot the last year or two. I might go back and finish, but ....
Yes, I've been doing that a lot the last year or two. I might go back and finish, but ....
Sai Thein Than wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."
i can go with you but without both we'll be living in a better world
Actually I think Science and Religion compliment each other. Like Ying and Yang....Each stands on it's own but leans on one another.
cHriS wrote: "Maria wrote: How do you justify it if a pedophile baby rapist and an upstanding father of small children are both on plane that crashes, and the rapist survives but the father doesn't?..."
It cou..."
So, you are going with the 'things happen' argument.
Interesting.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
."
....but then what about the victims and their families; do they not have the right to justice?
....and would you be happy for him to live next door to you if he was released?