Is the most harmful religion also the most authentic religion?

[Htom Sirveaux]

To put it another way, are harmful forms of religion "butter" and non-harmful forms of religion "margarine" at most?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Harmful forms of religion are the most authentic forms of religion.
	0 (0%)
	Harmful forms of religion are no more or less authentic than non-harmful forms of religion.
	3 (60%)
	Non-harmful forms of religion are the most authentic forms of religion.
	0 (0%)
	Other (please explain).
	2 (40%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[randr]

1. Authentic religion is an oxymoron

[atreides1]

2. What randr said

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. Ok, let's try another way:

when you think "religious person" does anyone personify that category for you?

[merrily]

4. Jesus (as the bible depicts Jesus). Ghandi.

I don't get the OP, though. I see harm coming from people who claim to be religious, not from the religions themselves. Then again, I only know about a few, conventional religions.

[AlbertCat]

75. people who claim to be religious, not from the religions themselves.

Uh....

If there are no people claiming to be, say religion A, then religion A does not exist. Religion A may have existed in the past (like ancient Greek or Nordic religions) but if there are no followers of religion A then it doesn't exist anymore ....except maybe as some curious and interesting mythologies.

So "people who claim to be religious" are indeed THE religion. Religion is not there if there are no people to make it up and follow its made up doctrines.

[Scuba]

5. +1

[cbayer]

23. How is it an oxymoron?

[randr]

31. Simply put

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Authenticity concerns the truthfulness of origins, attributes, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.

[cbayer]

33. The word authentic is difficult in this context because it

can be interpreted in several ways.

I was thinking more of it meaning genuine or sincere, which I think religious beliefs often are.

However, truthfulness is not something that can easily be attributed to religion, though truthfulness of commitments, sincerity and devotion certainly could be.

[randr]

35. Right you are

However, imo, religious practitioners are rarely genuine or sincere.

[cbayer]

36. Imo, religious practitioners are more often genuine and sincere

than not.

[immoderate]

53. Sincere belief makes a religion more authentic?

Shouldn't it have something to do with the validity of the religion's claims?

--imm

[cbayer]

55. I'm not really clear of the definition of "authentic" in this context.

It all just seems terribly vague.

Validity really has no place in the discussion of something that can neither be proved nor disproved, so I don't think that's the right criteria at all.

[immoderate]

58. "Athentic" seems an inappropriate modifier for "religion."

But I think that was the point.

--imm

[cbayer]

59. Perhaps. I am still not clear on the point….

but that could very well be just me, lol.

[AlbertCat]

78. Authentic religion

Since all religions change and morph and are manipulated for personal/ political/ economical/ etc etc reasons over the millennia, and are NEVER the unerring word of anything, I'd have to say any "authentic" religion passed away in prehistory.

[Wait Wut]

6. It's the follower, not the faith.

Being a self-righteous, hateful asshole is a right of all faiths and non-faiths. So is being a loving, compassionate human.

[rug]

12. Why is this simple truth so ferociously denied?

[Wait Wut]

13. I don't know, arrogance?

"Mine is better than yours" mentality? If this way of thinking didn't cause so many wars, murders, etc., I wouldn't even care.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Because some religions have doctrine that is an exhortation to being a "hateful asshole".

[rug]

16. You confuse religion with the republican platform.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Do I?

[rug]

18. Oh, do you equate them? This will be very interesting.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I didn't raise the spectre of politics at all.

[Niceguy1]

34. I have never a hateful

Thing said at mass, not one single time....

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You weren't listening very carefully then.

[AlbertCat]

79. Why is this simple truth so ferociously denied?

Because, without the follower, there is no faith.

"Faith" just cannot exist without an agent.... a follower. You can't just have "faith" on, say Mars or Venus....where there is no one to have faith.

Religions ARE the people who claim to follow them, and are therefore HOW they are followed....by their followers. No followers, no faith.


Why is this truly simple truth so ferociously denied and ignored? (usually by the followers)

[okasha]

7. Define "authentic," please.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. The platonic ideal, the essence of religion,

the standard by which the question, "Is this a religion?" is answered. Does that make things clearer?

[okasha]

9. Not really.

What I'm asking for is a definition of that standard or ideal. What characterizes an "authentic" religion?

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. That's the question I'm asking.

And "there is no such standard" is a one kind of answer. So is "Jesus/Gandhi is the ideal religious person" as above. And someone else might say "Jerry Falwell is what religion looks like. To the extent that something looks like Jerry Falwell, it is real religion. If it looks like Gandhi, that's watered down religion."

[okasha]

11. Then I go with "other"

because the question is pretty much meaningless for a panentheist pagan.

[stone space]

29. It's subjective, but I'll make a feeble attempt at defining "authentic religion".

Define "authentic," please.

Of course, since I'm an atheist, my definition may be suspect. (In reality, I'm just taking my definition of "authentic atheism" and changing a few words, so don't expect too much...lol.)

Unfortunately, I won't define "authentic" (just "authentic religion&quot , and in fact, I will even use the word "authentic" in my definition. Oh, well...it's a value judgment, anyway.

Authentic religion is that religion that speaks authentically (yeah, self referential...I know) to the human condition, helps to give our lives meaning, and which challenges us to better ourselves and our surrounding environment.

In essence, authentic religion is religion at its best.

That authentic religion would be deemed harmful and/or dangerous to some (especially those in positions of power) seems almost axiomatic to me, considering its tendency to challenge, which sets it apart from more domesticated versions of religion, which may even be seen as useful to those same folks.

I voted (1) in this poll, since in my experience "authentic religion" has traditionally been deemed as dangerous and harmful because of its tendency to challenge the status quo.

[okasha]

46. Thanks. That's a clear, workable definition.

I also agree that authentic religion challenges the status quo. In that respect, I've been very glad to see.Pope Francis reaching out to the Latin American liberation theologians quashed by his predecessors.

[Iggo]

14. Harmful to...?

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. I'm not sure I understand. Could you expand on your thought? nt

[Iggo]

21. Exactly. (n/t)

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. You...win? I guess? nt

[Brettongarcia]

26. Sirveaux as usual is playing "apologetics"; playing logic and word games to defend "good" religion

The always surreptitiously apologist or pro-religion writer, Sirveaux, is here apparently accusing critics of religion in effect, of regarding only obviously bad religion. As if that was the only "authentic" form. While ignoring “good” religion; as if it was “inauthentic” or not real religion, in effect. As if obviously bad religion was ironically, the critics' "bread and butter." While critics, he implies, unjustly ignore the good religions, which don't offer as much ammo for criticism.

But? Sirveaux? We also criticize “Good” liberal, spiritual, "peaceful" religion here too.

In fact it seems, likely even the allegedly peaceful and spiritual ones are bad too. Here you might like to consider the dark side of even, say, apparently peaceful, spiritual monks, "ascetics." There were very, very spiritual ascetics for example, who despised physical things like food; to the point that they themselves starved to death. And/or guided others to starvation. From over-spirituality; lack of attention to the physical side of life.

Sirveaux? Some of us have heard sly apologetics games, sermons, all our lives; from priests, ministers, theologians. By now, many of us recognize a "apologist," the instant we hear him. And many of us are already, long since, quite, quite tired of such word games.

Your latest apologetics game on DU? Is accusing critics of favoring - or ironically in a sense, being attached to, regarding as "authentic" - only bad religion in some sense (as a subject for criticism). By that is merely annoying. And untrue in every way.

Sirveaux? Some of us were weary of this kind of trick, decades ago. And we won't have much more patience for it.....

[Htom Sirveaux]

47. I think you make a good point about not devaluing the physical.

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I've seen you quote that line from 1 John before about people who wish others well but don't see to their physical needs, and I think that's right on. The Buddha also realized the value of the physical when starving himself didn't bring him enlightenment.

That having been said, I can also think of examples of allowing oneself to be physically harmed that are generally acknowledged to have been worthwhile; since you mentioned starvation, how about Gandhi's starvation to shame the British, or the hunger strikes by prisoners in California or Gitmo to highlight their ill treatment? Or consider the civil rights activists who allowed themselves to be beaten to prove that Jim Crow couldn't break their wills.

Are those efforts "too spiritual" for you?

[okasha]

57. Oh, just 'fess up, Htom,

you "sly apologist," you.

You're really a secret agent of the Inquisition, aren't you?

[Htom Sirveaux]

63. Shhhhh!

[Brettongarcia]

65. Servieux: Do you have a strong association with a recognized church? Especially,are you a preacher?

Jesus once told his followers to be "wise as serpents." This might be better and more accurately translated as "sly as snakes." It is to be sure odd that Jesus should be likening his followers to serpents (as did Paul for that matter); when God himself of course, normally likened snakes to the devil himself.

In order to disambiguate your own status: did you attend a religious school or seminary? In the interest of honesty, this would be a useful self-disclosure.

In any case: Gandhi, note, did not deny himself physical food to the point of starving himself to death. (In addition, there are persistent rumors that he did not deny himself sexuality, particularly). Nor did Gandhi, a trained lawyer, eschew involvement in worldly affairs; like say the re-foundation of Hindu/Muslim India. Nor were his efforts entirely satisfactory: as his new state schismed; helping to create the specter of revived Muslim fundamentalism that we currently see worldwide.

In my experience, there were no more militant Muslims than Pakistanis; since they had recently successfully fought a full scale Muslim religious war, against India; dissatisfied as they were with Gandhi's new state.

In this way, Gandhi had been uniquely polarizing, in spite of his protestations otherwise.

[Htom Sirveaux]

66. I'm a Unitarian Universalist. I'm not a preacher, and...

I haven't attended any religious schools or seminaries.

[Brettongarcia]

67. Thanks for the clarification; sorry for my close exam on this question, which is important

Back to Gandhi:

Gandhi was almost a hero of my childhood. I admired Gandhi's nonviolent resistance; which clearly seemed Christlike. And both Gandhi and Jesus were major models for Dr. Martin Luther King, and the Civil Rights movement; which I strongly supported. However? Keep in mind that all three of these nonviolent protestors were ... physically assassinated. To me, that suggested a kind of failure; they under-appreciated the effectiveness of physical forces.

Gandhi waffled on physicality; but in the end, he failed to simply protect himself from physically violent people. Some insist this physical self-sacrifice is a virtue. But had he lived, and had he been more practical, he might have kept India from splitting into India and Muslim fundamentalist Pakistan.

Was the fault specifically his asceticism, spirituality, anti-physicality? In some ways it was. Though the fault was not from him, as much as … Queen Victoria. Victoria's spiritual “Victorianism” undoubtedly over-influenced many Indians, after she proudly proclaimed herself “Empress of India.” The problem there was that non-violence is generally good; but failing to physically defend yourself is bad. Three traditional religious heroes died, from assassination, or inability or unwillingness to physically defend themselves: 1) Jesus, 2) Gandhi, 3) King. For that matter 4) After flourishing for 800 years, Rome itself collapsed immediately after becoming fully Christian, c. 300-400 AD. Probably from a Jesus-like unwillingness to physically defend itself.

So yes, there are very, very severe, even physically fatal problems, dangers, in religious spirituality. Spirituality neglects physical reality, in all too many ways. Often fatally.

One might easily argue that to be sure, ignoring physical assassins is not important, given a peaceful society. But religion's general antagonism to physical technology and science, its hierarchically dualistic, spiritual antagonism to the hard lessons of the physical universe in general, is an even worse problem. Over the centuries, we found that technology was a billions times more successful at getting physical needs, than praying for physical things. Finally the Bible itself therefore began to warn us that our holiest men were often bad. Or as it said “false.”

[Htom Sirveaux]

68. 1. I can think of many people who were assassinated or nearly assassinated

despite the best security.

2. If Christianity caused the fall of Rome, how did the Christian Byzantine Empire survive another thousand years?

3. Galileo and Bruno do not prove that religion has a "general antagonism to physical technology and science." Copernicus, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Mendel, Lavoisier, Faraday, Lemaitre...there were and are lots of scientists who have/had no problem being devoutly religious at the same time.

[okasha]

69. Your second observation is the one

that completely puts paid to the notion that Christianity brought about the Dark Ages. Of course, most of the people who put forth that argument don't even know there was an Eastern Roman Empire or that it was in many ways totally independent of the Western branch.

[Brettongarcia]

70. 1) Religion often glorifies being assassinated; 2) Byzantium was never as great as Rome.

3a) Promising regular reliable physical "miracles," "all" and "whatever" we "ask" (John 14.13), was where Christianity seriously crossed science.

This latter failure was so pronounced, that likely most scientists who stated they were religious, secretly or even publically abandoned this major feature of their avowed faith. But to that 3b) we here note the basic antagonism of specifically, spirituality to serious consideration of the material, physical world.

Spirituality often even "hates" the "world," "riches," and material "possessions," telling us even that all physical material things are radically inferior to our spiritual soul, and that physical things are a mere distraction in life. In this way, much of religion - spirituality especially - is fundamentally antagonistic to the material basis of science.

In fact, science succeeded, was fruitful, only by abandoning major elements of religion. If the death penalty had not been in effect for heresy, likely many scientists would have publically denounced even far more elements.

The fundamental conflict between religion and science to be sure, was only publically acknowledged, only as the death penalties and more severe social prohibitions, were progressively dropped. That happening slowly. It did not gather steam in fact, until Dawkins and other scientists at last said, rather recently, what had been the minds of many before them.

[Htom Sirveaux]

72. Answers:

1. My point was that when a religious person gets assassinated, it's not clear that some supposed disdain for the material is to blame, since assassination can happen even in the midst of the tightest security and the most concern for the physical.

2. So? If Christianity was to blame for Rome's fall, Byzantium should have fallen as well either immediately or soon after (especially if it was weaker than Rome to begin with), since it was also Christian. The fact that it lasted another thousand years points away from Christianity as the cause of Rome's fall.

3. (a)If a requirement of reliable physical miracles was a "major feature" of Christianity as you contend, Christianity would have died a long time ago. Personally, I suspect the teaching you highlight is left over from the days when the Second Coming was expected any day by the majority of Christians, not just by fringe sects and revenge fantasy peddlers. "Whatever you ask for" would be delivered with the full coming of the Kingdom of God.

(b) And yet the creator deems his physical creation "good," and the Bible is full of admonitions to help those in physical need, and not just by wishing them well, as you have pointed out in 1 John.

Also, the idea of a fundamental conflict between religion and science is falling into disfavor:

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the Scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science conflict methodologically, factually and politically. This thesis is advanced by contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and proposed by many creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[1][2][3][4]

Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith," a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally.[5]

[Brettongarcia]

73. I agree that fortunately, Religion is finding a nenewed respect for Science.

But regarding the state of its respect for physical life? Regarding specifically, assassination? I understand that of course, even persons with a strong sense of the need for physical security, get assassinated.

But 1) Christians are generally too trusting and careless about such things. As witnessed by Jesus, Gandhi, and King.

And 2) furthermore, not only do Fundamentalists like religious murders.

But also and especially: 3) liberal religion victims glamorize their own victim-hood. Being a "martyr" dying for Jesus, is romantically embraced. Jesus himself by the way, did not physically resist his capture or execution, for example.

So there is strange embrace of Death itself, an anti-life ethos, in Christianity. Both among Fundamentalist killers (like the murderers of Gandhi). But also strangely, among victims. Physical killing - or even dying oneself - is thought to be good. In a strange way. Part the traditional rationale for this: among "spiritual" victims, dying is thought to free the spirit to go to heaven, for example.

So I submit that in much of Christianity we see in a strange giving-in to assassins; which is a key part of the physically dysfunctional ethos of Christianity.

I hope that appreciation of the physical world and life is increasing among Christians; and encouraging that in fact is my current major project.

However, it seems clear to me than much remains to be done there.

[cbayer]

24. There are individuals and groups that are harmful, both religious and not.

I don't know what you mean by authentic. If the belief is authentic, and by that I mean genuine, then the religion should be authentic as well.

I guess.

[Brettongarcia]

25. Likely ALL religions are harmful; even the "good" or "authentic" or inauthenitic ones

1) Religion is essentially taking things on "faith," without evidence; a bad habit. This makes one gullible.

2) The word "religion," Plato correctly said (over and above modern objections), comes from something like "re-legere"; meaning to tell the same stories over and over. Thus religion is obsessive-compulsive. And inflexible.

So essentially ALL religion tends to make you gullible - and inflexibly, obsessively attached to whatever impossible things you are told.

3) Most religions have lots of violence in their history.

4) Next we are told that surely there must be "good" religious leaders; like the peaceful Jesus say. But there was violence hidden under even Jesus. Jesus claimed to be linked to the violent Old Testament god. And at times Jesus threatened violence himself; flogging the moneychangers out of the temple; telling us also that he had "not come to give peace, but the sword." Turning brother against brother. While looking forward to a violent End Times.

5) Even religion that appears to successfully be "peaceful" and "spiritual" still has problems. The apostle James noted that a religion that gives us only spirituality, but not the physical material things we need to live, is a literally physically fatal religion (James 2.14-26).

So in conclusion? There are no good religions at all. As would seem to many of us.

[The always slyly apologetic Sirveaux is once again playing semantic/logical apologetics games here. In this case, he is apparently accusing critics of religion in effect, of ignoring “good” or peaceful religion, calling it “inauthentic” or not real religion, in effect. While concentrating only on obviously bad religions, as if they were the definition of (authentic) religion. But? We also criticize “Good” liberal, spiritual, "peaceful" religion here too. Regarding it too as an authentic subject for criticism]

[intaglio]

27. There's an authentic religion?

Where?

[cbayer]

28. How are you defining authentic?

If one uses the more philosophical definition, then I would say that most religion is authentic, in that it is genuine.

[intaglio]

30. Definitions

Authentic
Not a copy - find me the source religion
Done in the traditional way - in the sense that religions say that what they do is traditional maybe but most if not all religions change their practices over time so no
Based on facts - No
Relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life - arguably not but possible

Genuine
truly what something is said to be - no
Sincere (free from pretence or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings) - in this sense OK.

[cbayer]

32. Agreed. I was going for the sincere definition, but I find the word authentic difficult to

really use in the context of religion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

38. I was going for "possessed of all the traits

which constitute this particular category."

[intaglio]

39. What traits? n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. Good question. What makes something a "religion", in your opinion? nt

[intaglio]

48. Unfounded belief in a deity or other supernatural force

Thus Buddhism is a religion as much as the Yazidi faith. Let's face it anything that claims that a certain set of actions will gain you or others benefit after death is nothing more than ritual magic, prayer is either ritual magic if attempting to actively effect some other person or self aggrandisement because you are showing how much you think of others.

[cbayer]

49. If you have not found a reason to believe, then your belief would be unfounded.

But for those that have found a reason to belief, I think their belief is well founded.

Can you define what you think religion is without resorting to putting down those that see things differently than you do?

[intaglio]

50. Does well founded mean believed to be well founded

or does it mean demonstrably well founded. Personally I prefer the latter.

[cbayer]

51. I'm not sure.

But when you say that religion is about believing in something that is unfounded, that is your opinion and a pejorative take on religious belief.

An individual's beliefs may be well founded for them, though you wouldn't buy it. Your lack of belief may be well founded for you, though some would not buy it.

Personally, I prefer to take the position that some people believe and some people don't' and neither group is wrong or right.

[intaglio]

54. I was asked for my opinion

and, honestly, unfounded might also describe a belief in quantum mechanics. People have been told that quantum behaviour governs the workings of modern electronic components but, as far as they know, it could actually be microscopic demons with cleft sticks.

I have been lucky enough to have performed experiments demonstrating the reality of quantum effects that provide a more reasonable and well founded explanation than cooperative demons.

[cbayer]

56. Well I am glad to hear that you are on the cutting edge

of disproving cooperative demons, lol!

[Htom Sirveaux]

60. Lots of people think their belief in a deity or other supernatural force

is at least somewhat well-founded. Are they not religious, if that is what they think? Or what if their belief in a deity or other supernatural force is not based on hopes for life after death...not religious then?

[intaglio]

61. Refer to post 50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218145244#post50

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. That raises two questions for me: first, demonstratively well-founded to who?

Different people have different requirements of demonstration. For some, logical argument is sufficient. Others would require some kind of experiment that could be performed at will.
-
Second, when is this demonstration supposed to be taking place? Experience, in principle, always has the power to overturn prior "successful" demonstrations, does it not? It would seem that nothing could ever be "well-founded" if we are relying on external foundation rather than an internal one.

Given those two issues, "believed to be well-founded" might be preferable.

[intaglio]

64. Consider the meaning of monstrance n/t

[cbayer]

41. Possessed of all what traits that constitute what particular category?

I am not following your definition here.

[Htom Sirveaux]

42. Religion is the category.

So just as an example:

Me: "religion should be abolished. Blind faith is harmful and encourages violence!"
You: "But what about these religions that value reasoned reflection on their ideas?"
Me: "Oh, they aren't as religious."
You: "So blind faith is part of what it means to be authentically religious, and if a group isn't using blind faith, it is less religious?"
Me: "Exactly"

[cbayer]

43. So by authentic, do you mean most dogmatic and rigid?

I am so missing your point, I think

[Htom Sirveaux]

44. In that example, the character of "me"

was indeed claiming that dogmatic and rigid was a necessary, essential part of what it is to be a religion. I, myself, was not adopting that claim, just giving an example.

[cbayer]

45. I am still having trouble understanding what you are saying.

What I think it is is this:

My religion is the most authentic because we most strictly adhere to the variety of things believed in and taught about this religion. Others who just adhere to some of them are less authentic than we are.

In that way, Hasidim would be more authentic than other jewish sects and fundamentalist christianity would be more authentic than other christian sects.

Am I getting that right?

Even if I am, I don't agree with that statement at all. I don't think any particular religion is more authentic than any other. It's just a matter of what speaks to or doesn't speak to an individual.

[randys1]

52. Doesnt the OP question point out how absurd religion is in the first place?

which one is authentic?
which one is real?
which one does the least harm?

which one worships the real god vs ALL the others be default must worship a fake god?


think now...

[trotsky]

74. As many other have pointed out, so much depends on your definitions.

Even one's definition of "harmful" can depend on one's religious beliefs. Some very religious people believe that life begins at conception. To them, a religion that allows for reproductive choice is very harmful.

[catbyte]

76. I wish there'd been an option to click that ALL forms of religion are harmful

That one I could've gotten behind.

[Brettongarcia]

80. I agree; the lack of that option biases the poll

[cbayer]

81. All forms of bigotry are harmful, including bigotry against the religious.

[catbyte]

82. I'm not a bigot. I have found that religion--especially Christianity--is personally damaging to me.

How is that bigoted? You know, there's a reason that only 4% of us Indians identify as Christian. Think about it.

[cbayer]

83. So based on your personal experience and a statistic about how many Indians

identify as christians, you have drawn the conclusion that all religions are harmful?

I thought about it and I don't think that makes much sense.

By the way, when you speak of Indians, what group are you talking about?

[catbyte]

84. No, I got the clue that it was harmful from my mom. Her 90th birthday was yesterday if she'd lived.

She died in 2006. She never wore sleeveless blouses or a bathing suit in public because she was too self conscious of the scars she had on her shoulders & back from the beatings she took as a little girl by the nuns in "Indian School" in northern Michigan. Now what could a little girl do to deserve that type of treatment? She said "Thank you" in Ojibwe one too many times, I guess, or else the nuns just enjoyed beating "savages." Who knows. She was 8 when they started. I want nothing to do with a god like that. Other religions like Buddhism aren't as destructive, but I find them useless. What's wrong with just making the most of your life here without all the "afterlife" crap?

Why are you so defensive and attacking non-believers? What's it to you how I arrived at my feelings? Mine are just as valid as yours. I don't actively mock, intimidate or badger believers. I just think religion is more a force for bad than good. Can't I have MY opinion?

[cbayer]

86. Ah, native americans.

It is an unforgivable tragedy what was done to native americans by some religious groups in this country. Your mother, of course, did absolutely nothing to deserve that type of treatment and I can understand why you have very strong feelings as a result of what she endured.

I don't blame you for wanting nothing to do with a religion like that. I don't want anything to do with them either, except whatever I can to stop them.

There is nothing wrong with making the most of your life good without religion. Nothing at all.

There is also nothing wrong with making the most of your life good with religion. Different strokes, that's all.

I do not attack non-believers just because they are non-believers. I do challenge anti-theists and those, like yourself, that make broadbrush statements like all religions are harmful. That, by the way, is not the same as saying that it is more a force for bad than good.

[catbyte]

87. Yeah, we have a habit of calling ourselves "Indians" a lot. I don't know why, lol.

Perhaps I should explain the "Anishinaabe in MI" sig file. Anishinaabe is Ojibwe for us, or people. I guess I've never seen an organized religion that's really done any good in this world. I know that individuals and groups of people of faith do good things, but as a whole, I just don't see where religious institutions have benefited mankind in any way, from ancients sacrificing innocents, to The Crusades, to The Inquisition, to al Qaeda, to American Talibubbas, ad infinitum. What religions do you think are not harmful, or good, I guess. I really am curious. Thanks!

[cbayer]

88. I get confused by the term indian, because I am often not sure

if one is talking about native americans or Eastern indians.

Damn that Columbus!

I know virtually nothing about your people. I've spent time with native groups in many parts of the country, but not in the northern, central states.

There is no doubt that there is much negative that can be attributed to religions of all kinds, but I also believe that religion has done and continues to do many good things in the world.

If you want an overview of some of that, the documentary "Half the Sky" is a good place to start. Also the Not All LIke That project is worth taking a look at. notalllikethat.org

In addition, religious groups both in this country and around the world often provide goods and services that governments don't and very often are tending to the most needy among us.

There has also been significant religious involvement in civil rights and anti-war movements, including currently in regards to GLBT rights.

Your experience was extreme and I can understand how you got where you are, but I hope you look a little deeper.

And I apologize if I came down too hard on you.

[Brettongarcia]

85. Calling any criticism of religion in general, "bigot"ed, is the fundamentalist cliche of our time

Note however, my reasoned presentation of problems inherent in all "religion" per se.

First for example that 1) Plato suggested the name "religion" comes from repeating stories; re-legere. And to the extent that it relies on repetition, rather than reasoning, it is systematically anti-rational, or irrational. To the extent that it relies on repetition, it is hypnotic.

Likewise, 2) the emphasis on "faith," means firmly believing things that cannot be proven. This is also anti-rational; which is finally destructive.

Opposing intelligence and reason itself, is not a good thing. Yet this bias seems inherent in the very word "religion" itself. As well as in its core concept.s

[rug]

89. As is calling any religion bigoted.

[Brettongarcia]

90. !!?? Religions are famous for a racism, nationalism, and genocidal prejudice

Just read the Bible. To see God systematically acting against specific nations and ethnic groups, killing men women and children.

Then read your history book. Research "Genocide." Or just turn on your TV, and watch the latest news from Africa and Iraq.

Plato and Freud hinted that that irrational bias is the very essence of Religion. History adds that this bias is often directed toward a racial or ethnic "Other."

In recent centuries, there were wars between Protestants and Catholics, who often hated each other.

[rug]

91. Viewing all that, and more, I come away with a position on religion that is informed but not bigoted

Which you clearly have not.

[LibAsHell]

77. I would think so, unless I misunderstood the question.

To be authentic, you gotta go exactly by the book. To go exactly by the book, you gotta say and do a lot of incredibly primitive shit (and that's not even counting the shit you would do were it not illegal) and in-so-doing you cause the most harm to yourself and those around you.