I Do Blame Religion

[jimmygun]

Every time a person or persons commits a crime in the name of religion the first impulse of most is to defend that religion. "Don't blame religion, we are guiltless. Those that do the crime are responsible not us."

We have in Canada and I am sure in the States too, laws governing 'Atractive Nuisance' In short it protects the public from harm which would come from investigating dangerous areas such as power lines, open pits etc. Even knowing there is danger in climbing electrical towers does not relieve the power company from responsiblilty if someone is hurt. They must provide sufficient protection to deter anyone from getting hurt. Dangerous areas are surrounded with fences and barbed wire.

It has be shown time and time again that people will use religion to cause all kinds of hurt and destuction. Since day one of religion, someone has used its name for evil practices. Should they not be responsible for these actions if only in an "Atractive Nuisance" point of view? I think so. I think their responsibility goes further than that but there should be some kind of onus on their part to try and limit the damage done in their name. Perhaps they should create a barrier around themselves to weed out those that would use their religion for evil.

[Yahzi]

In American law I think the concept you are referring to is "Negligence." I agree completely. The idea that priests get to spout their nonsense into the heads of defenseless children is insane. Religion should be like sex - something you aren't exposed to until you are of an adult age.

Of course the priests know that if you don't teach them god within the first 8 years, you are liable to lose them. Just like baby ducks imprinting on their mother. No, don't take me to task about my choice of analogy, it is a Christian analogy from a Christian book on raising children.

If an atheist tried to teach children about atheism, he would be stoned. But a priest can babble any crazy horror, and everybody just smiles and nods their heads.

[Yahweh]

I notice that alot of people tend to use religion as something that drives human morality. They think that a person never exposed to religion would have no morals. Completely not true. Although I have never been religious in my life, my parents did try hard to help straighten out that kind of nonsensicle thinking that I had in my head... I mean really would believe that there is no god. The sarcasm almost steams off the monitor dont it. They took me to church all the time and read the bible to me. Look at me now... I am completely godless but I'm a good person. In reality its all that Bible that was pumped into my head that turned me into a highly cynical person. You never know, I could have be a humanitarien. Sometimes you find stupid people who try to justify the stupid things that they do in the name of religion... I cant think of an example right now but I'm pretty sure that you could *coughosamacough*. Oh I see I have the sniffles *coughcough*. Religion is such an old idea that came from the dawn of humans and because it has been taught to people since infancy for generations religion still exists as an integral part of life. I always wanted to see what would happen if we took a group of children and try to teach them that a great big invisible lizard, lets call him Gigantor, created the earth. I could go on and on but and even write a whole bible but I bet at least half of those children will be convinced for the rest of there lives that Gigantor the rainbow lizard made earth when one of his eyes fell out and began to sprout plants. All hail Gigantor.

[Tony]

You could say the same thing about any ideology where the followers of said ideology fancy themselves morally superior.

[c4ts]

You know, Christians use that same metaphor when they talk about Hell.

Footnote to Plato: they are so in the cave.

[ceo_esq]

The "attractive nuisance" doctrine exists in American law as well. An attractive nuisance is a dangerous thing or condition on someone's property that might conceivably lure children to trespass (such as a swimming pool or a broken piece of playground equipment). The owner is under a legal duty to take steps protect children from the danger.

I have a few initial difficulties with jimmygun's analogy, though. First, the attractive nuisance concept applies only in the context of children. An adult (no matter how many attractive nuisances he was exposed to as a child) is presumed to be capable of avoiding the danger (and of knowing not to trespass in the first place) himself. I realize that Yahzi's focused on the child angle by saying that kids shouldn't be exposed to religion, but the allegedly inherent dangerousness of religion relates to crimes perpetrated by adults, not children. The conduct of adults is never linked to an attractive nuisance.

Also, I have something of a problem with laws that treat certain ideas (e.g., evolutionary theory, religion, socialism) as inherently dangerous. And, for that matter, what is the proper analogy for religion in this example? Private swimming pools generally? Private swimming pools with no fence or lifeguard?

[FireGarden]

Interesting argument, Jimmygun.


ceo_esq
I can see what you mean about protecting adults.

But in Britain there are government health warning on cigarettes (which are meant to be for adults). So should there be a similiar warning for religion?: "It is not guaranteed that confessing to a priest will save your soul - it may be better to stop sinning"

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
You could say the same thing about any ideology where the followers of said ideology fancy themselves morally superior.

Eeeeeexactly! The extremists like Fred 'God hates fags' Phelps and Eric Robert 'bomber for God' Rudolph aren't typical Christians, though they *are* an inevitable by-product of a philosophy which claims for itself an absolute right to moral stewardship. The reasons they're not more common, or more active as they were in the days of the Crusades and inquisition, is because Western Christianity has largely been neutralised by Darwinism and secular humanism.

Of course, a Christian would argue that they *don't* claim moral perfection - indeed, the essence of Christianity is admitting you're a sinner and that you need help to be better. However, in my view this misses the point. Christians claim their *philosophy* is perfect, and if it's in the Bible, it's right. Thus they not only consider non-Christians to be (at the very least) following a lesser set of moral guidelines, but they fossilise moral progress by upholding a 2000-year-old document as the final word on the subject.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Thus they not only consider non-Christians to be (at the very least) following a lesser set of moral guidelines, but they fossilise moral progress by upholding a 2000-year-old document as the final word on the subject.

I'm not sure that one can write off the better part of 2,000 years in the development of Western moral philosophy, stretching from before Aquinas all the way to the most respected contemporary ethical theorists like Alasdair MacIntyre, as the fossilization of moral progress. Can one?

[jimlintott]

I disagree about blaming religion.

First, let me preface this by saying that I find religions and their accompanying magic shows to be stupid and pointless. But so is playing golf.

Religion is only an idea. It doesn't present an actual physical danger like a power station might. Religion only becomes dangerous when people grant it power and choose to act. Religion is completely powerless. It is not some sort of magic force that can cause good or bad things to happen. To treat religion like it actually has some power is no different than accepting that the paranormal exists. It doesn't.

When a religous nut commits a heinous crime it should be no surprise that they will cite religion for their inspiration. It is also true that when police investigate serial rapists they find that these people often have large collections of pornography. How many times have we heard that we should blame pornography for this behaviour. Blaming religion is like blaming pornography. It's a dodge to transplant the blame from the person who deserves it to something less tangible.

As I've said many times before, if we blame religion for bad things we have to blame it for good things. I won't give it that power. When a person acts on an idea, blame the person, not the idea.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


I'm not sure that one can write off the better part of 2,000 years in the development of Western moral philosophy, stretching from before Aquinas all the way to the most respected contemporary ethical theorists like Alasdair MacIntyre, as the fossilization of moral progress. Can one?
Quite easily. Just ask the fundies, who reject all your clever reworking of God's word.

Spending the last 1,700 years trying to make a dusty old book allow for the expression of new moral ideas (like slavery is bad) does not count as doing moral philosophy, nor does it count as progress.

You seem to think people studied the Bible and thus morality progressed. The opposite is true: morality progressed, and people devoted endless effort to reinterpreting the Bible to account for that.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by jimlintott
When a religous nut commits a heinous crime it should be no surprise that they will cite religion for their inspiration. It is also true that when police investigate serial rapists they find that these people often have large collections of pornography. How many times have we heard that we should blame pornography for this behaviour. Blaming religion is like blaming pornography. It's a dodge to transplant the blame from the person who deserves it to something less tangible.

Ditto.

[jimmygun]

Cigarette manufacturers, gun manufacturers and automobile manufacturers all hid behind your arguement for decades. The user is to blame for any mishaps with our product, not us. Slowly the voters and politicians recognized the inherent danger of their products and steps were taken to minimize that danger.

You have warnings on cigarette packages and other programs trying to get people to quit or never start. You have (or should have) safe handling courses for firearms and rules for hunting that make it safer for people to use the product. You have criteria for ownership of driving licenses, age limits, sight restrictions, all designed to give protection while using the product.

What constraints does religion have? None. Any imbecile can pick up a bible and a gun and start popping people in the name of Jesus or Mohammed. They firmly believe they are doing the lord's work and nobody lifts a religious finger to even try to screen out the idiots. Quite the opposite, they are welcomed with open arms.

Guns in the wrong hands are dangerous. Cars in the wrong hands are dangerous. Live high-tension wires are dangerous. All the people involved with these things recognize this danger and their responsibility to the safety of the public.

Religion in the wrong hands is a proven danger. Religion does not recognize any responsibility and continues to keep its head in the sand.

[billydkid]

I blame religion too. But I also blame people and I am a little leery about removing any aspect of personal responsibility for the criminal things that individuals do.

[jimlintott]

I think that comparing cigarettes, cars, etc to religion is an apple and orange thing. Religion is an idea the others are actual physical things. Manufacturers of a product do have a responsibility to attempt to make the safest product they can. What happens after that is mostly up to the individuals who use the product. No one is forced to smoke. Driver's are licensed to ensure a minimum skill set.

The problem with blaming religion is twofold. First there is the granting of power to religion, which is something I refuse to do. I seek to keep religion powerless so I won't blame it for good or bad things. Second it is an idea. To make laws regarding the thoughts in people's heads is very dangerous. We just can't go there.

Now, I will concede jimmygun's point about religion taking some responsibilty and keeping their heads in the sand. Maybe they should be more vigilant on members of their flock who may be teetering over the edge beyond healthy belief. Problem is that many of the real nuts think that the churchs aren't extreme enough and don't go anyway and the fundamentalist nut job might appear as a very devout believer which is the goal of the church anyway. I wouldn't hold my breath on them being able to recognise the real crazies.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Quite easily. Just ask the fundies, who reject all your clever reworking of God's word.

Spending the last 1,700 years trying to make a dusty old book allow for the expression of new moral ideas (like slavery is bad) does not count as doing moral philosophy, nor does it count as progress.
I'm not sure what you mean by my reworking of God's word. Also, Ian's reference was to Christians, not fundies as such. But whatever.

I'm not sure I'd agree that what all those philosophers were (and still are) doing was simply reinterpreting the Bible. Whatever they were doing, however, it would probably come as a shock to university philosophy departments everywhere to learn that it didn't constitute moral philosophy or progress.

To examine your notion a little further, though: does spending the last 200 years trying to make a dusty old document like the Bill of Rights allow for the expression of new moral ideas count as jurisprudence? Does it count as progress? If not, why not?

[Ossai]

ceo_esq
To examine your notion a little further, though: does spending the last 200 years trying to make a dusty old document like the Bill of Rights allow for the expression of new moral ideas count as jurisprudence? Does it count as progress? If not, why not? Because the constitution was knowingly written as a living document. The advancement of morality has grown counter to some of the basic ideas expressed within the bible and the re-evaluation has basically been nothing more than a cleaver cover-up.

Ossai

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ossai
ceo_esq
Because the constitution was knowingly written as a living document.

The description of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” generally refers to its adaptability to new situations and the widespread (though not universal) belief that the Constitution is to be construed in the light of events and matters upon which it is contemporaneously brought to bear. The same description, for similar reasons, is often applied by Jews to the Torah and by Christians to the Bible. (Interestingly, a Google cross-search of the phrase “living document” with either “U.S. Constitution” or “Bible” yields roughly the same number of hits.) In a certain sense, some reasonably valid parallels can be drawn between a philosopher’s or theologian’s interpretation of the Bible and a jurist’s interpretation of the Constitution (which is why judges interpreting the Constitution consciously borrow the theological term “exegesis” to describe their task).

There are plenty of grounds for distinguishing the Constitution from the Bible, but the one you’ve offered isn’t especially valid – and certainly not for the purposes of the question originally raised, which (roughly speaking) was whether the Bible’s role in Christianity prevents Christians from actually doing moral philosophy. A little formal exposure to the discipline and its history would persuade most people that that’s simply not true.

[Fun2BFree]

Religion or religious thinking may or may not be the root of the evils committed but it is certainly the fertilizer (as I am sure many on this board will agree)...ALL religious thought is characterized by one idea- that what you believe is true without any need for objective proof....belief is enough. Faith is the key- no proof required-in fact, no proof is allowed- because if something is proven it is no longer accepted on faith but on fact. Start with this irrational idea that what YOU think is the most important determinant of what is right and true and of course anyone conditioned to think this anti-rational way can be expected to act in a non-rational/evil manner.

(My first post!)