Undeniable evil of religion

[Cartoonist]

rug posted an article about the destruction of buildings in Tibet. This made me think of the destruction of temples and statuary by the Taliban and ISIS. Some apologists for religion like to claim that the evil motives of these groups have more to do with social inequities, power grabbing, or just plain greed. Please explain how the destruction of ancient relics has anything to do with anything else other than the religious driven hatred spurned on by Holy Texts.

[SomethingNew]

1. They are destroying religious relics.

One would think you would be happy with the outcome...

[kestrel91316]

3. Indeed.

[Cartoonist]

4. Not at all

I resent that assumption. Art is Art, regardless of its inspiration.

[kestrel91316]

2. Please don't broad brush slander your fellow DUers who have religious beliefs.

"Apologists for religion" - by that I assume you mean anyone who takes the First Amendment seriously.

[Cartoonist]

6. Not a broad brush

I was speaking specifically to those apologists that make the claim that religion has nothing to do with the Taliban or ISIS and instead attribute it to baser motives. I guess you haven't seen these posts.

Hiding behind the first amendment is what haters do.

[kestrel91316]

9. I do believe you just called me a hater. Projection much?

[Cartoonist]

11. You accused me of slander

Tone it down

[kestrel91316]

13. I'm not the one who needs to tone it down. You need to refrain from broad brush slander of

people exercising their First Amendment religious freedoms. If you don't like it, maybe Saudi Arabia is more to your liking.

[Cartoonist]

14. WTF?

So I can't use my first amendment freedomss but you can? As I said before, this post is a direct response to the select few religious apologists on DU. No broad brush. No slander.

You seem to be the one against criticism of religion. What country supports your view?

[rug]

5. Regarding Larung Gar, this is an effort by the PRC to quell any nationalist sentiments in Tibet.

I fail to see any religious motive in its actions. Quite the opposite.

[Cartoonist]

8. Not about Larung Gar

That is why I started a new thread. I agree, that issue has little or nothing to do with religion.

[jonno99]

7. "Undeniable evil of religion" Really? Sometimes people are just dicks:

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/01/25/47143/

[Cartoonist]

10. Pitiful deflection

Who said anything about Nazis?

[jonno99]

12. You're really going to hurt yourself jerking your knee that fast. My link is not about nazis -

it could have been anyone, any group deciding to destroy art. My point was & remains to be that you don't have to be religious to be a dick.

Which begs the question - why are you trying to stir up trouble by creating such a broad-brush, offensive post? Are you feeling lonely and needing of some attention?

[Cartoonist]

15. You brought up the Nazis. Own it!

And what's with this broad brush shit? I have said twice now that this is a response to previous posts by a handful of religious apologists here on DU.

And now you're calling me lonely. Boo Hoo.

[jonno99]

16. Yes - you created a reprehensive, "broad brush" post - own it.

(oh and yes, I posted a link about destroyers of art - not religious - who happened to be nazis. I'm very sorry that you had to be exposed to that...)

[Cartoonist]

23. Do you even know what a broad brush is?

Define it and then show me how it applies to anything I said. I have repeatedly said I was only addressing a small number of religious types, not all, not many, not even you, unless you are in the group of apologists who claim that religion is not responsible for anything evil. Not all believers make that claim. Some are honest enough to admit the dark side of religion. I need a very narrow brush to paint them.

[jonno99]

26. Perhaps then you need to simply change the title of your OP to make it clear

that you are targeting a "group".

If I created a post titled "Undeniable evil of atheism", would you find that title acceptable if I was merely referring to a small group of individuals?

[Cartoonist]

31. I was referring to the destruction of religious temples and artifacts.

The body of my post made that clear. I can't help your misunderstanding. That's something you have to work out.

[Angry Dragon]

17. republicans love to bring the Nazi into all discussions

[jonno99]

18. Ouch. Seriously though - that is your take-away? What would be your response

to the statement: "In every discussion about religion, Atheists love to paint all religions & religious folk with the same broad brush."

[Angry Dragon]

20. Seriously --- I have trouble telling the true christians from the fake christians when they all call

themselves christians

[jonno99]

21. Personally, I don't care what folk call themselves - I'm interested in what they DO.

On this we can probably agree: there are many whose so-called "identity" doesn't jibe with their actions.

And sadly, I occasionally find myself amongst their number...

[On the Road]

19. Has Nothing to Do With Hatred

They also destroy relics of Islam on the basis of the first and second commandments -- namely that religious relics become superstitious idols which mislead people.

Islam has destroyed more relics and sites from Islam than from any other religion. All the historical locations in Mecca associated with Mohammed are systematically being torn down.

I hate the jackasses who have done this and it is completely misguided. But it is not driven by hatred for other religions.

And if religions are all evil, why is it so bad to get rid of their relics?

[Cartoonist]

22. Who said they were all evil?

I am merely pointing out the evil that religion can foster. Some apologists claim that religion can do no evil. I just schooled them on that, so did you.

[rug]

24. Are you denying the undeniable evil of religion?

[Cartoonist]

25. No

There are certain aspects of religion that are evil. It is undeniable. Just read the texts.

[rug]

28. I have. All of it. It is eminently deniable.

Mattthew 10

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

[guillaumeb]

30. You might be casting your seed on stony ground.

Very stony ground.

But, as with Saul, even the denyingist of the deniers can be brought to the Lord.

And that nobody can deny.

[Cartoonist]

32. only by apologists

Slavery, homophobia, and misogyny are prevelant in the Bible. But go ahead and deny it if it makes you feel good.

[rug]

34. Oh, bullshit. You have four buzzwords and a pout.

That constitutes neither knowledge nor an argument.

[Cartoonist]

35. Why repeat myself?

I've posted direct quotes from the Bible supporting slavery, denouncing gays, and subjugating women. Every time I have done that you act as if they don't exist or try to explain them away in some ridiculous claim about "different times". In other words, you aknowledge it, but don't ask your own church to update their centuries old texts. We do that here in America and the rest of the civilized world by passing new laws and amendments. Why can't religion do the same.

From NeoGreen's latest post:

[rug]

36. You've posted a cartoon with 30 words circled.

Neither constitutes critical thinking.

Perhaps if you said something of substance in the first place you wouldn't have to repeat yourself.

Here's your homework:

* (14:33b–36) Verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 Cor 14:34. 1 Cor 14:34–35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 Cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 Cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.

Try some exegesis instead of used apologetics.

[Cartoonist]

37. Are you kidding me?

That wasn't exegesis, that was the most convoluted example of apologia I've ever seen. And I find it disgusting that anyone would take it as scholarly and deny the obvious misogyny. Let me guess, that was written by a man. Of the cloth probably.

[rug]

39. Lol. Your reaction reminds me of a third grader asked to diagram a sentence.

When all he really wants to do is shoot spitballs.

[Cartoonist]

40. So it was written by a priest

No surprise.

[rug]

41. If you prefer, I'll look for a cartoon version.

Jack Chick perhaps?

[Cartoonist]

55. About that cartoon

You do realize that that "cartoon" I posted was a picture of the actual text from the Bible and not some pathetic weaseling by a vatican flunky trying to make the misogyny of the church not what it seems. What's next? How about having David Duke perform an exegesis on Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Anyone can be an apologist. No one can deny the actual printed hate that abounds in the Bible.

[rug]

57. What you posted was an image of two pages (out of a thousand) from the Bible with one verse circled.

A high form of cherry picking.

[Cartoonist]

58. Plenty of cherries to go around

You know damn well that there are hundreds of similar passages in the Bible that can be circled. Many of them have been quoted right here in this forum.

Google:
Bible misogyny
Bible slavery
Bible homosexual
Bible genocide

And then get back to me in three years after you've clicked on them all.

[rug]

59. I suggest you study those passages before reding them to four slogans.

Then you can get back to me.

[Cartoonist]

60. Has it been three years already?

You may remain blind, but the rest of us can see.

[pangaia]

29. Maybe have a martini. It will all be better in the morning.

[trotsky]

42. I think your point is proven.

There has not been one argument against your position, only responses to straw men and personal attacks.

There are some people who refuse to admit that even at least sometimes, deeply held religious beliefs can be the motivation for evil acts. The desire to avoid that conclusion is so strong, it ironically results in them behaving in much the same manner as those who did the despicable acts. Attacking you, denying your humanity, painting you personally as the enemy. It's sad but does perfectly illustrate the problem: religious privilege.

[Cartoonist]

56. I've spotted a trend

Instead of a reasoned argument, because let's face it, they have none, they resort to calling my post silly. Or they do the childish attack by saying, "I'm not allowed to call you stupid, so I won't."

[guillaumeb]

27. Another "very nuanced" post from a poster

who specializes in them.

What is undeniable is the intellectual and logical silliness of such a post.

[Cartoonist]

33. Another denier

full of name calling but completely lacking in argument.

[guillaumeb]

44. At least you are self aware.

That was self analysis, no?

[Brettongarcia]

38. So Religion can do no wrong?

Is there no bad thing or Evil at all, in any element of Islam or Christianity?

It seems to me that Cartoonist has a focused, simple, and extremely important question.

Will religious defenders here ever answer it?

[guillaumeb]

45. It IS a simple question, and like many simple questions from the attackers

of faith, it lacks any nuance. It is an attack disguised as a question on a level with the "have you stopped beating your spouse" type of "question".

People commit acts of violence for reasons known to and claimed by themselves.

Religion can do no wrong just as any belief can do no wrong. People are needed to act.

I know that this is not the simple answer that you wish for, but life can be complicated.

[Brettongarcia]

47. 1) Words, commands, ideas, effect people

2) In religion, there are many commands to slay those who oppose God or his people.

3) Many people hear these commands, and accept them. Committing violence they would not otherwise have committed, without the influence of religion.

[guillaumeb]

48. Words...etc are not confined to religion.

Patriotism is also used to inspire people to murder other people. Do you thus condemn patriotism/nationalism?

Or do we agree that certain people commit violent acts, no matter the claimed inspiration?

[Brettongarcia]

50. Many are swayed by incendiary speech, etc.

It is therefore irresponsible to allow incendiary or hate speech.

For this reason, some speech is proscribed by law.

[guillaumeb]

51. You did not answer my question...eom

[Brettongarcia]

52. 1) We do not agree

2) You are not answering my question. Can religion do no wrong.

[Iggo]

43. One religion destroying the relics of another religion has everything to do with religion.

[rug]

46. What religion is destroying Larung Gar?

[guillaumeb]

49. You know...........the bad religion.

Bad religion also equivalent to all religion for some here.

[kwassa]

54. No, it has to do with one belief attacking another belief.

The belief can be religious or not. The behavior remains the same.

One true belief attacking another group who thinks they have the one true belief, be it religious, political, racial, national, historical, etc.

[anoNY42]

53. If you believe in a Sky Fairy

then you are open to believing that other people have their own Sky Fairy. That being the case, the Taliban and ISIS are merely practicing a "pre-emptive strike" to defend themselves from other Sky Fairies...