Does Religion Oppress Women?

[Lee]

Hi Lee
fficeffice" /><?"urn:<img src=" />
Man does indeed appear to have a propensity for grouping and as history shows that mass collective can be directed into either good or bad, unfortunately more often bad.

The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved because they as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of righteous service to their god.

Again yes I agree, we only need to look to our histories to see the validity of this. But yet again so can that most evil of evils, yep I speak of 'National Patriotism'.

Not that I wish to embrace 'Godwins Law' but we can see that during the second world war with the actions some of the soldiers of Germany performed.
Well no doubt they had the 'Fatherlands' best interest at heartm, but still. Also consider those experiments done in the late 60's early 70's over in America, you know the ones I mean, the old giving somebody the electric shock ones.

It shows that the vast majority of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as imorral.

People say things like you have 'ahh yet but the differance with religion is....'

I say that is quite incorrect, ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death. Religoin is no differant in this way.

Look at so called Honor Killings, that is not religious at all. And is it this idea of Honor that is to blame? No sir not at all, it is how people act and react towards this idea.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Lee ji,
It seems as if you are agreeing witih TheCoopes ji. Just to clarify... are you?

He says:

The difference with religion as a group is when it goes bad all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved becausethey as religiously motivated believe their butchery is an act of righteous service to their god [ultimate authority].

You say:

Also consider those experiments done in the late 60's early 70's over in America, you know the ones I mean, the old giving somebody the electric shock ones. [Studies done by Milgram and recently Zimbardo]

It shows that the vast majority of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as imorral.

Then you ignore God as Ultimate authority and say:

I say that is quite incorrect, ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death. Religoin is no differant in this way.

The way I see it is:
Religion is divisive (like you said "ALL divisive ideas can and have caused violence even unto death.")

Religion is guided by one primary authority figure (and perhaps several secondary authority figures)... and like you said "[the studies] shows that the vast majority of people will react to authority figures even to the point of performing actions that they would normaly see as immoral."

Also because following that authority seems righteous: "...all natural guilt which could modify their sickening conduct is absolved..." - the coopes


So it seems to me that you both agree, yet you sound as if you are not agreeing.

 

[Lee]

Bhagat ji,

Well I do agree that relgion can and has done so and probably will contiune to cause mankind to act and react in violence ways. Yet I see this argument quite frequntly.

'Religion is the cause of war and violence'

Now I'll not deny this, I will amend it to say that religion(like other divisive ideas) have been used as an exuse to commit violence. However it is not the idea that cuases such strife it is mankinds reaction to the idea. Or we are to blame for all violenc, how can you blame an idea, blame instead those who subscribe to the idea.

The differance you see between my position and Coopes, is that he stresses that religion is somehow differant (from other divisive ideas) in that it absolves some guilt as the relgious belive that the actions they perform is sanction by a higher power.

I dismise this as false, and claim instead that ALL divise ideas are open to this. I then gave several examples of non religious ideas in which bad behaviour has been seen to be sanctioned, and be correct because of a higer authority.

In short it is my standard aregument in the face of the 'religions cause war argument'. Yes they do but if you want to say this, then you must also admit that it is not the sole divisive idea with such problems attached, and to make a claim otherwise is both false and intectualy dishonest.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Bhagat ji,

Well I do agree that relgion can and has done so and probably will contiune to cause mankind to act and react in violence ways. Yet I see this argument quite frequntly.

'Religion is the cause of war and violence'

Now I'll not deny this, I will amend it to say that religion(like other divisive ideas) have been used as an exuse to commit violence. However it is not the idea that cuases such strife it is mankinds reaction to the idea. Or we are to blame for all violenc, how can you blame an idea, blame instead those who subscribe to the idea.

Ideas don't cause violence, systems do. Religion is not an idea, its a collection of ideas plus authority that forms a dogmatic system.

The differance you see between my position and Coopes, is that he stresses that religion is somehow differant (from other divisive ideas) in that it absolves some guilt as the relgious belive that the actions they perform is sanction by a higher power.

... and are percieved to be righteous by the followers... this is important!

I dismise this as false, and claim instead that ALL divise ideas are open to this. I then gave several examples of non religious ideas in which bad behaviour has been seen to be sanctioned, and be correct because of a higer authority.

Well Nazism is one such system. But the people who enforced it did not think it was righteous (some may have but i doubt the majority ever did), The Milgram study showed that immoral actions were result of the authority. People who participated and went all the way, knew they were doing something wrong!

In short it is my standard aregument in the face of the 'religions cause war argument'. Yes they do but if you want to say this, then you must also admit that it is not the sole divisive idea with such problems attached, and to make a claim otherwise is both false and intectualy dishonest.

Well I don't think anyone claims or has claimed here that religion is the only one. (I think "dogmatic systems" instead of "divisive ideas" would be a better phrase)
But once you have a dogmatic system where the members think it's righteous to carry out the immoral actions then religion is quite unique. Again other systems where this is true will also be part of the problem.

 

[Lee]

Ideas don't cause violence, systems do. Religion is not an idea, its a collection of ideas plus authority that forms a dogmatic system.

... and are percieved to be righteous by the followers... this is important!.

I think semantics aside, whether we call religoin an idea or a system(of ideas) is largly irrelevent, we can also use ideal, or principles, whatever. The main thrust of this point is that all ideas are capable of being used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Yet not all of us misbehave so such ideas cannot be blamed, but how people react towards them. People are more than capable of NOT erruptinging into violence, so I say blame the violent people not the idea.

Well Nazism is one such system. But the people who enforced it did not think it was righteous (some may have but i doubt the majority ever did), The Milgram study showed that immoral actions were result of the authority. People who participated and went all the way, knew they were doing something wrong!

Yes indeed I agree with you here.

Well I don't think anyone claims or has claimed here that religion is the only one. (I think "dogmatic systems" instead of "divisive ideas" would be a better phrase)
But once you have a dogmatic system where the members think it's righteous to carry out the immoral actions then religion is quite unique. Again other systems where this is true will also be part of the problem.

Again we can use dogmatic systems, yet I think I'll stick with divisive ideas, as we can of course have such ideas without any dogma.

Rigtheousness certianly does not only occour within the religious world. There are many examples of this, just choose any war for example.

Yes you are correct nobody here has said that it is only religoin that casue war and violence, but you know I've been a 'net head' for about 15 years now, I have engaged in thousands of debates andin my experiace when somebody utters the cry 'religons cause war' or other words that mean the same sort of thing, it is most often beacuse they have a disliek for religion. My basic response is to show them that other things also ilicit these kinds of response.