Dad, Why Can't They Change What They Believe?

[kang]

No, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you, or anyone else, would kill to have prayers in schools, although some kill abortion doctors to prevent more abortions.

The rest of your comments were what I was looking for. You don’t feel your beliefs should be pushed upon others, but there are many that do think this. Some will kill non-believers, or kill to push their beliefs on others. Others want their beliefs taught in public schools. It just a question of how far someone will go to push their beliefs on others: prayers and creationism in schools, uniting church and state, or killing. While killing is way out there, it’s all pushing your beliefs on others; it’s just a matter of degree.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
We have a winner! What always baffles me is how those people buy that BS. "We are a religion of peace, now go kill some infidels!" ****** morons. If I was asked to kill in the name of my religion or God, the only response they would get is me laughing my way out the door. Unfortunately it would appear that most radical muslims don't share my opinion.

And in reverse, some people believing that Muslims "want them dead because they're infidels" so we must kill them first BS, when the issue is interventionism, power and territory.

It's both.

[ROSSINNI]

I think what your son said applies to EVERY situation...If we could modify what we believe or at least be willing to accept what other's believe; there would be a lot less hate in the world in general.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
Cute, but that wasn't what I asked. I asked for examples of religions that haven't been used to justify murder, oppression, etc. with a secular objective of attaining (or retaining) power or territory - not examples of conflicts that simply didn't happen to call upon religious differences as a way of dehumanizing an enemy or providing a basis for the conflict.

You asked (retorically):

When HASN'T religion been used to further peoples' desire for power or territory?

I answered factually. I specifically listed examples when religion was not used to further people's desire for power or territory. It was just raw greed, jealousy, envy or revenge. The conflicts that I (and others) listed were examples of conflicts in which religion was not a major factor. Now leaders may retorically use references to religion in their speeches, but that's different. I doubt that without too much searching I can find quotes related to those conflicts in which people described the enemy as "a lower form of life", or maybe as "not having evolved as much as we have" or some other nonsense. Do those statements mean that science was used to justify murder, oppression, etc. with the non-scientific objective of attaining (or retaining) power or territory?. Should we now blame science for all of the world's problems. Look at the animals in the wild, living happily without science.

Enough hyperbole. My point is that your original point makes no sense since we can replace the object of your statement (religion) with the suggested opposite (science) and the statement is just as valid. Or more specifically, just as in-valid. Given that the overwhelming proportion of major conflicts during the last few hundreds of years were not started over religion, your statement just doesn't stand up. So it does't add any insight to the discussion, but you're welcome to say it anyhow.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by kang
No, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you, or anyone else, would kill to have prayers in schools, although some kill abortion doctors to prevent more abortions.

The rest of your comments were what I was looking for. You don’t feel your beliefs should be pushed upon others, but there are many that do think this. Some will kill non-believers, or kill to push their beliefs on others. Others want their beliefs taught in public schools. It just a question of how far someone will go to push their beliefs on others: prayers and creationism in schools, uniting church and state, or killing. While killing is way out there, it’s all pushing your beliefs on others; it’s just a matter of degree.

I see what you're getting at, but I would say that killing over a difference of belief is more than just a difference of degree, it's a whole other league. Though it would be an interesting way to hold an election.

These arguments are inevitable, they seem to crop up every month or so. What always gets me are those that state that people have been killed in the name of other religions. Note that I'm not arguing that this is factual, because there's no doubt it is. But you have to take things in context, because last time I checked, Catholic priests aren't out firebombing mosques to further the spread of christianity.

My point is, in our modern, global society, there's only one group that kills in the name of furthering their religion, at least on a large scale (disregarding isolated nutjobs). Sure, the Christians had their crusades, but they traveled on hourseback, and it occured in a day when people still viewed fire as magic. The world has come a long way since then, but it seems some have been left behind. The order of the day is now peace and acceptance of other cultures, which for the most part is a good thing. But again, there's one group that still believes that it's their way, or none at all, and has no tolerance for others. To dog on Catholics again (I am one), you don't see rioters every time there's a priest joke or cartoon, do you?

To end my rambling, I have to say that I'm still not sure where you're going with your argument. I think it's difficult to draw a parallel between radical Muslim groups and a conservative christian group that wants creationism taught in school. Sure, you may not agree with them, or feel that you have to listen to what they're saying, but they won't bomb you and your family over it either. One is far easier to ignore than the other. And for that matter, why is it so hard to ignore? Christians are just as bothered by Darwinism as agnostics are by creationism, and you can't prove either one. Sometimes those that are yelling for equality need to step back and look at themselves. But that's a topic for another thread........

[Moneyguy1]

Power.

Religion empowers. Religion controls. Religion instills fear. Religion demands conformance. Religion can be a weapon.

Religion can be a power for evil when it should be a force for good. It is man's nature to desire control over others with whom he disagrees. This would appear to be at odds with the nature of the Almighty.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Having motives doesn't make someone less crazy, it just means they have crazy motives. How people in our country can identify with and justify the actions of those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people is beyond me.

Bryan, you'd be surprised. Except a slight variation.....instead of identifying and justifying strapping bombs on oneself, it's the identifying and justifying of dropping bombs from planes.

[kang]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
That's right. Think the US Civil War, Nepolian's Wars, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korean War, etc. Come to think of it, most of the recent wars have had nothing to do with religion.

-Wayne

With all due respect, Wayne, I question putting WWII in that list. The holocaust was most certainly based on religion. Hitler considered Germans the superior race, Jews the lowest, and everyone else in the middle. Considering yourself superior to everyone else is a primary tenant of religion, even if Hitler didn’t call it that. What I’m saying is that Hitler’s Germany was a form of religion.

Perhaps the “second half” of WWII, e.g. Japan versus the U.S, wasn’t based on religion, but the “first half,” the world versus Germany, was.

[ronin]

Originally posted by cool_chick
OHMIGOD

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!!

you just have your first orgasm?

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by kang
With all due respect, Wayne, I question putting WWII in that list. The holocaust was most certainly based on religion. Hitler considered Germans the superior race, Jews the lowest, and everyone else in the middle. Considering yourself superior to everyone else is a primary tenant of religion, even if Hitler didn’t call it that. What I’m saying is that Hitler’s Germany was a form of religion.

Hitler tried to use science to prove that Germans were a super race. He made evolutionary claims to try to support his vision. He also made religious claims. Basically, he used anything that he could get his hands on. But at the end of the day it was bold face bigotry. Religion had no more or less to do with it then science.

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Hitler tried to use science to prove that Germans were a super race. He made evolutionary claims to try to support his vision. He also made religious claims. Basically, he used anything that he could get his hands on. But at the end of the day it was bold face bigotry. Religion had no more or less to do with it then science.

It was Eugenics, not religion. As a public school graduate, I went my entire educational career without ever hearing a word about eugenics, which is sad, because the belief led to the deaths of millions of people. Some in our own country.

[Tobra]

I have never used my religion to gain power, treasure or territory, in fact I have never met anyone who has used their religion in such a fashion. How about that for an answer?

Tough to change beliefs, they are often not based on rational decisions, tell your son that.