Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

NI_MPU('middle');According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
Click to expand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

I agree there is a correlation here, but there are many other factors at play and I'm not going to say I agree that there is an overall cause and effect relationship. On individual issues yes, like abstinance funding and abortion, but not as a whole.
 
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

Wrong. You dont see me doing drive by's on people, let alone support abortion, and other crazy stuff. And i was bought up in the Christian view point of life and in the christian Jehovah Witness viewpoint of life and i dont do things like that.

Where the hell is all these studies coming from?

And when is people gonna understand that satan exist?
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']And when is people gonna understand that satan exist?[/QUOTE]

when you learn to speak english.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

Wrong. You dont see me doing drive by's on people, let alone support abortion, and other crazy stuff. And i was bought up in the Christian view point of life and in the christian Jehovah Witness viewpoint of life and i dont do things like that.

Where the hell is all these studies coming from?

And when is people gonna understand that satan exist?[/QUOTE]

Let's look back on the history of civilization and tally up the bloodshed based on various causes. I guarantee religion, especially Christianity, is the number one cause of violence and bloodshed by a landslide. But hey, the crusades were all in good fun, right?
 
religious belief caused the salem trials. i would say that would contribute to religious beliefs being bad for societies.
 
[quote name='2poor']religious belief caused the salem trials. i would say that would contribute to religious beliefs being bad for societies.[/QUOTE]

Well let's be fair - that was christianity.

Seems to me that the article is focusing on Abrahamic religions.

It's not really surprising if you've ever read the bible - the christian god portrayed within is always urging it's followers to crush the skulls of babies and rape the women of infidels.
 
There is no such thing as the christian GOD dude, because there is only one GOD and the word or term chrisitian GOD is not found in none of the bibles.

I just had to point that out right quick, do not marvel.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Let's look back on the history of civilization and tally up the bloodshed based on various causes. I guarantee religion, especially Christianity, is the number one cause of violence and bloodshed by a landslide. But hey, the crusades were all in good fun, right?[/QUOTE]

Well the wars that took place in the bible times are completely different then the ones that we bare witness to now. And i think Jesus made this real clear, when he said we shouldnt seek revenge upon our neighbors and we must love our enemies and not wage war against them.

Thus, when GOD sent Jesus into this world, alot of things has change. Just like the eye for an eye thing, that may have existed before the messiah in a matter of speaking, but the law around that has change. If someone hits you, we should'nt strike back.

I'm all for self-defense tho, it really all depends on whats going on.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Well the wars that took place in the bible times are completely different then the ones that we bare witness to now. And i think Jesus made this real clear, when he said we shouldnt seek revenge upon our neighbors and we must love our enemies and not wage war against them.

Thus, when GOD sent Jesus into this world, alot of things has change. Just like the eye for an eye thing, that may have existed before the messiah in a matter of speaking, but the law around that has change. If someone hits you, we should'nt strike back.

I'm all for self-defense tho, it really all depends on whats going on.[/QUOTE]

You mean the crusades took place in biblical times? Huh, and here I thought that the late 11th and 12th centuries were long after the bible. And the witch trials? Gosh. I don't even think Salem was a glimmer in anyones eye back in biblical times. Wow, I wonder which one of us needs to learn some history.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Well the wars that took place in the bible times are completely different then the ones that we bare witness to now. And i think Jesus made this real clear, when he said we shouldnt seek revenge upon our neighbors and we must love our enemies and not wage war against them.

Thus, when GOD sent Jesus into this world, alot of things has change. Just like the eye for an eye thing, that may have existed before the messiah in a matter of speaking, but the law around that has change. If someone hits you, we should'nt strike back.

I'm all for self-defense tho, it really all depends on whats going on.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, it's all been downhill since Jesus showed up.......er, waitaminute....what are you talking about?
 
War is war people, there is no difference. Crusades, war, its all dumb and foolish. Just stupid humans running around acting like cain and abel, being tricked by the devil. The defintion of a crusades is listed as how the christians was having a holy war, well i think its time to understand , not all christians are like that and some christians has gone astry from the truth. Religion and faith is not the cause of war, or violence. Satan is and i think its time yall understand that.

See, not to hard to understand.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']War is war people, there is no difference. Crusades, war, its all dumb and foolish. Just stupid humans running around acting like cain and abel, being tricked by the devil. The defintion of a crusades is listed as how the christians was having a holy war, well i think its time to understand , not all christians are like that and some christians has gone astry from the truth. Religion and faith is not the cause of war, or violence. Satan is and i think its time yall understand that.

See, not to hard to understand.[/QUOTE]

Remember folks, denial is the first stage towards acceptance
 
Lack of religion or the state taking the place of the church or faith caused 50 million dead Soviet citizens to an atheistic government, countless millions more to the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Chi Coms, North Koreans and other totalitarian states.

So.... if you want to criticize countries and people for having faith? Look at the alternative. If you ask me in modern times the lack of guidlelines religion provides result in far worse societal ills and conditions. I'd even say that's true in Islamic countries.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Lack of religion or the state taking the place of the church or faith caused 50 million dead Soviet citizens to an atheistic government, countless millions more to the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Chi Coms, North Koreans and other totalitarian states.

So.... if you want to criticize countries and people for having faith? Look at the alternative. If you ask me in modern times the lack of guidlelines religion provides result in far worse societal ills and conditions. I'd even say that's true in Islamic countries.[/QUOTE]

I think the answer is pretty obvious. Abandon religion and give everyone a copy of Aesop's Fables at birth.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Lack of religion or the state taking the place of the church or faith caused 50 million dead Soviet citizens to an atheistic government, countless millions more to the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Chi Coms, North Koreans and other totalitarian states.

So.... if you want to criticize countries and people for having faith? Look at the alternative. If you ask me in modern times the lack of guidlelines religion provides result in far worse societal ills and conditions. I'd even say that's true in Islamic countries.[/QUOTE]

But what would be dangerous about religion, one person with ultimate authority, who is worshipped, a worshipped and magnificant history etc. are all present in those countries. They were essentially religion without god (though the nazis believed in god). The state, leaders, and the ideology it brought with it essentially became the religion.

Though, who is chi chom? Is it a nickname?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Or they could get Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, a Little Red Book or the Juche Idea.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but kids like talking bunnies
 
If you want to dumb it down for the kids show them the British animated movie that came from Animal Farm.

The Nazi's weren't so much believers in God but the occult and earlier paganistic faiths. The SS Ahnenerbe was tasked on archeological digs around the world from Tibet, the Middle East and throughout Europe. You see, those Nazi digs and expeditions that took place in Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade really are loosely based on historical fact.

Read a bit more about the SS Ahnenerbe here.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you want to dumb it down for the kids show them the British animated movie that came from Animal Farm.

The Nazi's weren't so much believers in God but the occult and earlier paganistic faiths. The SS Ahnenerbe was tasked on archeological digs around the world from Tibet, the Middle East and throughout Europe. You see, those Nazi digs and expeditions that took place in Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade really are loosely based on historical fact.

Read a bit more about the SS Ahnenerbe here. [/QUOTE]

That has to deal with the Nazi fascination in the concept of the ubermensch, not any denial in the christian god.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Lack of religion or the state taking the place of the church or faith caused 50 million dead Soviet citizens to an atheistic government, countless millions more to the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, Chi Coms, North Koreans and other totalitarian states.

So.... if you want to criticize countries and people for having faith? Look at the alternative. If you ask me in modern times the lack of guidlelines religion provides result in far worse societal ills and conditions. I'd even say that's true in Islamic countries.[/QUOTE]

um, what about the Conquistedors? or Manifest Destiny? or the Crusades? or the Children's Crusades? or the Inquisition? or the Meiji Restoration?

Religion isn't bad or good, it is what it is. People taking religion too far or too near are the cause of the problem.

fuckin' megachurches...
 
Manifest destiny was a phrase created by a Tennessee newspaper writer John L O'Sullivan. It was not anything created by a U.S. President, Congress or American religous group.

This phrase is as misquoted and misunderstood as "seperation of church and state" which entered the American lexicon through the writings of former KKK member, Supreme Court Justice, and FDR appointee, Hugo Black. It is not in the constitution.

Nothing about the Meiji Restoration was religous in nature.
 
irregardless of who coined what, the fact of the matter is that "awakened" whites moved west destroying a large preexisting culture on the account that they were "savages" aka not Christian and later when Jackson was president we have that thing... oh what was it? Oh yah, the Trail of Tears... Also Chief Joseph and all that depressing shit.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you want to dumb it down for the kids show them the British animated movie that came from Animal Farm.

The Nazi's weren't so much believers in God but the occult and earlier paganistic faiths. The SS Ahnenerbe was tasked on archeological digs around the world from Tibet, the Middle East and throughout Europe. You see, those Nazi digs and expeditions that took place in Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade really are loosely based on historical fact.

Read a bit more about the SS Ahnenerbe here. [/QUOTE]

The nazis ideology was what you mentioned, but many of the individuals did believe in a traditional christian concept of god, unlike the other examples.
 
Westward expansion started in 1803 after the Louisiana Purchase. Much of westward migration was also done by freed black slaves. Nebraska in particular was a welcome haven to them.

Andrew Jackson wasn't President when the phrase "manifest destiny" was even in the lexicon. He was President from 1829-1837 O'Sullivan's article on where the phrase was introduced was in 1839.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']The nazis ideology was what you mentioned, but many of the individuals did believe in a traditional christian concept of god, unlike the other examples.[/QUOTE]

Christianity was to be replaced by an official state sponsored paganistic faith. Christianity was tolerated but not endorsed.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']um, what about the Conquistedors? or Manifest Destiny? or the Crusades? or the Children's Crusades? or the Inquisition? or the Meiji Restoration?

Religion isn't bad or good, it is what it is. People taking religion too far or too near are the cause of the problem.

fuckin' megachurches...[/QUOTE]

I agree, religion is not good or evil, it's what people make of it. Things like the Salem Witch Trails weren't caused by religion, it was caused by a number of factors and religion was the excuse. The same can be said for something like the Crusades, it was caused by greed and power hungry leaders using religion as a mask.

(However, some believe the Children's Crusades are largely just myths. Some more modern historians even believe that most of the partcipants weren't even children.)
 
Things like the Salem Witch Trails weren't caused by religion, it was caused by a number of factors and religion was the excuse.
Click to expand...

The accuser often did it out of revenge or anger (not always though), but, outside of that, fear of the devil is why it was believed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The accuser often did it out of revenge or anger (not always though), but, outside of that, fear of the devil is why it was believed.[/QUOTE]

The result of just religion or puritan paranoia shunning of all things decandent or indulgent combined with a horrible "court system" not far removed from that used during the middle ages?
 
u2k seems intent on blaming all his problems on the devil. he wouldve fit in perfectly with every ignorant person during the salem witch trials.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']The result of just religion or puritan paranoia shunning of all things decandent or indulgent combined with a horrible "court system" not far removed from that used during the middle ages?[/QUOTE]

The main issue was the allowance of spectral evidence. It was a better system than the middle ages, what counted as evidence was the issue. And shunning all things decadent was part of their religious beliefs, but really had little to do with witch trials. The reasoning here was fear of the devil. What happened in salem was by no means an isolated incident, it happened in other parts of the country (on a smaller scale though), and in europe before, during and after (while very rare, witch trials lasted until the late 18th century in some parts of europe).

Though, that particular explosion of incidents resulted from young girls faking strange symptoms, and when a doctor couldn't diagnose it he concluded it must be the devils work. Under pressure (though they would later willingly accuse others) they accused their slave. Under intense pressure, their slave (tituba) admitted to seeing the devil and said their was a conspiracy of witches in salem.
 
Considering 20 people were put to death during the Salem Witch Trials we can safely call it minor although notorious. It doesn't compare to acts of terrorism done in Allah's name today on a near daily basis.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Considering 20 people were put to death during the Salem Witch Trials we can safely call it minor although notorious. It doesn't compare to acts of terrorism done in Allah's name today on a near daily basis.[/QUOTE]

But when you consider hundreds were jailed under witchcraft charges, and that it all took place in one community and in a relatively short period, it is larger than it sounds.

But, oddly enough, the witch trials, while killing 0 witches, made salem the witch capital of the world, and the place with the most real witches in the world. I'd like to see the faces of some of those old puritans if they saw salem today. Though they would be happy with all the churches, I swear every time I go there I find at least 1 new church.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The main issue was the allowance of spectral evidence. It was a better system than the middle ages, what counted as evidence was the issue. And shunning all things decadent was part of their religious beliefs, but really had little to do with witch trials. The reasoning here was fear of the devil. What happened in salem was by no means an isolated incident, it happened in other parts of the country (on a smaller scale though), and in europe before, during and after (while very rare, witch trials lasted until the late 18th century in some parts of europe).

Though, that particular explosion of incidents resulted from young girls faking strange symptoms, and when a doctor couldn't diagnose it he concluded it must be the devils work. Under pressure (though they would later willingly accuse others) they accused their slave. Under intense pressure, their slave (tituba) admitted to seeing the devil and said their was a conspiracy of witches in salem.[/QUOTE]

For starters, explain how the better system allowed a simple "I see the devil" comment as evidence or "I saw them talking with the devil" results in the death of someone is better than exact same thing that happened centuries before that in Euorpe? The only difference was the judge wasn't an actual bishop (though he was rarely removed from religion) and the accusers were not members of the leadership. The way in which the trials were conducted were extremely similar. It should not be a shock that similar occurences happened other places having a similar court system.

Not everything happens just like in Miller's The Crucible. It wasn't a simple belief of the devil causing it either, it was the belief that "the devil is among us" that was the spark of hysteria. To many Puritans, if your morning coffee was funny tasting, the devil was responible and often the devil seemed to work with that guy who's been giving you funny looks in the town square. There's also the factor that Salem itself was in the middle of what was basically a town schism (sp?) led by of course the town's Minister. I can only guess what the percentage of accused people who disagreed with the minister was, but I'd say it played a factor.

edit: I'd be a fool to say religion didn't play a part in the whole charade, but I don't know that I'd attribute it as a cause. The cause was liars and fools IMO.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']For starters, explain how the better system allowed a simple "I see the devil" comment as evidence or "I saw them talking with the devil" results in the death of someone is better than exact same thing that happened centuries before that in Euorpe? The only difference was the judge wasn't an actual bishop (though he was rarely removed from religion) and the accusers were not members of the leadership. The way in which the trials were conducted were extremely similar. It should not be a shock that similar occurences happened other places having a similar court system. [/quote]

The trial was public and there was a jury deciding the verdict. It wasn't done behind close doors, or public show trials, as it often was in the middle ages in europe. Torture (not up to par with europe though) and jail waiting times aside, the final verdict came down to a jury. Without spectral evidence, the most damaging of which involved the girls pretending to be possessed in the court house during the trial, the convictions wouldn't have occured. In one case a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury (which would have freed the accused), but they reconsidered after the girls started acting possessed in the court house. They took advantage of preexisting conditions, and many of the townspeople were caught up in it (though some didn't believe it).

The main accusers were the ministers daughter and her friends. Considering the ministers slave, homeless people, old isolated ladies, as well as influential and highly respected people in the community were accused, you can't really say that the minister was simply accusing anyone who was a danger to him. The people on the edges of society were accused first, and then it worked its way up to the elites as the accusers became braver.

Not everything happens just like in Miller's The Crucible. It wasn't a simple belief of the devil causing it either, it was the belief that "the devil is among us" that was the spark of hysteria. To many Puritans, if your morning coffee was funny tasting, the devil was responible and often the devil seemed to work with that guy who's been giving you funny looks in the town square. There's also the factor that Salem itself was in the middle of what was basically a town schism (sp?) led by of course the town's Minister. I can only guess what the percentage of accused people who disagreed with the minister was, but I'd say it played a factor.
Click to expand...

I think you're saying the same thing as I am about the devil. But the crucible follows the same general outline of what happened, and the main events are relatively accurate, at least for what you'd expect it to be. Any general discussion of the salem witch trial will have many similarities. But it's part of the local history around here, so you get a lot more exposure than simply from the crucible when you live here, plus whatever reading you do elsewhere.

In many ways the salem witch trials, while interesting, are not a good case study of witch trials as a whole. Particular events sparked it and sent it spiralling out of control, and it was focused mainly, though not entirely, around a small group of accusors, who without it would not have happened. It arose in very different circumstances, outside of the fear of the devil and the obvious connection with religion, than most others.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you want to dumb it down for the kids show them the British animated movie that came from Animal Farm.

The Nazi's weren't so much believers in God but the occult and earlier paganistic faiths. The SS Ahnenerbe was tasked on archeological digs around the world from Tibet, the Middle East and throughout Europe. You see, those Nazi digs and expeditions that took place in Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade really are loosely based on historical fact.

Read a bit more about the SS Ahnenerbe here. [/QUOTE]

The Nazi party started from the elite Thule society, a society that was Masonic in structure, pagan in nature, but devoted to wiping out Christianity, Freemasonry, Capitalism, and Communism.

They got a boost of political support from the National Socialist German Worker's Party when the then-communist controlled German government was attempted. The common Nazi would have sympathized more with the phrase "those damn commies", and was not talking to dead knights in the bowels of Himmler's castle or any of the other mysterious occult rites that the top of the Nazi leadership engaged in.

Also you need to remember also that when you say "pagan" and "occult", you are lumping together a heck of alot of divergent beliefs, practices, and world outlooks. It's not the same as saying christianity - after all, all christians believe that the christian bible (old and new testament) is a sacred text, and that Jesus Christ is either an all-powerful god or the son of an all-powerful god - but just try to get a group of randomly selected occultists to agree on anything.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Or they could get Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, a Little Red Book or the Juche Idea.[/QUOTE]


[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Where the fuck did that come from? Where did this topic even come up on this thread?

Stay on target![/QUOTE]


You picked out a few totalitarian states with propaganda that happened to be athiestic, or at least non-christian, at their core.

I was just pointing out that the men who founded the United States also did not believe that this nation should follow the rules of any particular religion, and if you look at our Constitutiton or Declaration of Independence you will only see vague references to a "God", not Jesus or the christian bible.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Manifest destiny was a phrase created by a Tennessee newspaper writer John L O'Sullivan. It was not anything created by a U.S. President, Congress or American religous group.

This phrase is as misquoted and misunderstood as "seperation of church and state" which entered the American lexicon through the writings of former KKK member, Supreme Court Justice, and FDR appointee, Hugo Black. It is not in the constitution.

Nothing about the Meiji Restoration was religous in nature.[/QUOTE]

Well, really, the phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Click to expand...

And having religion involved in government is just a stupid idea.
 
Interestingly, the article (which does seem to be awfully biased based on the wording) tries to play religion and evolution off each other. There are plenty of people who are religious who do believe in evolution, saying perhaps that it is God's way of doing things. In any case, religion and evolution are not diametrically opposed, that's for sure.

The writer of the article seems to be on a crusade to pin societal ills in the United States on religion, so I don't put too much stock in his conclusions.
 
[quote name='camoor']You picked out a few totalitarian states with propaganda that happened to be athiestic, or at least non-christian, at their core.
[/QUOTE]

Propaganda? These books are the very core, essence and being of their respective countries existence!

The Juche Idea is so paramount to the DPRK that you and I can't even fathom it. Mein Kampf the works of Marks & Engels and the Little Red Book pale in comparison in their significance to the state. These books were the inspiration for more deaths in the 20th Century than you can possibly count.

To dismiss them as propaganda is a vast, vast understatement.
 
let's not forget the Tai Ping rebellion (20-30 million dead) which was caused by a central non-atheist state crushing a resistance.


also, that Slave trade thing...

and Apartheid...

etc. etc.


It seems useless to say that Atheism or Religion is the "way" as there is proof that it has little to do with the moral constructs and more to do with socio-economic conditions and the history of each location and people.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Westward expansion started in 1803 after the Louisiana Purchase. Much of westward migration was also done by freed black slaves. Nebraska in particular was a welcome haven to them.

Andrew Jackson wasn't President when the phrase "manifest destiny" was even in the lexicon. He was President from 1829-1837 O'Sullivan's article on where the phrase was introduced was in 1839.



Christianity was to be replaced by an official state sponsored paganistic faith. Christianity was tolerated but not endorsed.[/QUOTE]

your statment seems to suggest that feed black slaves make up the majority of western migration. But I think what you're saying is that in addition to Awakened whites, blacks migrated as well. That's probably true - but the number is not significant when you consider the white settlements - hell, in Oregon, blacks weren't even allowed until 1890.

Regardless of the actual phraseology of Manifest Destiny, the point is that White Americans felt that the west was "theirs" and it was ripe for a destined Christian population - which echoes sentiments of Europeans 100 years earlier. The Louisianna Purchase as a concept (that we can buy a chunk of land from a european country) houses the same feeling.

A major reason why people came to america was religious freedom, but more specifically Christian religious freedom. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is what it is.

Then you have jesuits and missionaries in california, Brigham Young in Utah, Lutheran expansionism in the 1900s etc. etc.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Propaganda? These books are the very core, essence and being of their respective countries existence!

The Juche Idea is so paramount to the DPRK that you and I can't even fathom it. Mein Kampf the works of Marks & Engels and the Little Red Book pale in comparison in their significance to the state. These books were the inspiration for more deaths in the 20th Century than you can possibly count.

To dismiss them as propaganda is a vast, vast understatement.[/QUOTE]

Ok, Mein Kampf aside, propaganda was an inflamatory word to use.

I'd like to get back to the issue I have with you cherry-picking athiest societies that were spectacular failures, while ignoring those that have been modest or even great successes.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
edit: I'd be a fool to say religion didn't play a part in the whole charade, but I don't know that I'd attribute it as a cause. The cause was liars and fools IMO.[/QUOTE]

Collumn A and B.

It could be argued that Religion was instituted and maintained to keep the ignorant masses ignorant. 'Dont worry about anything, I'm doing God's work to save your soul, you just keep listening to my every command and making your donations so you don't go to Hell'

The 'spiritual leaders' used religion to keep everyone in the dark. They used fear to keep people in line. People were raised from birth to listen to these church figureheads for the good of their soul. They're doing God's work and God loves me, so they couldn't possibly take advantage of me.

Sure, it isn't the structured belief in a higher being and afterlife that causes trouble. However, the way it is perpetuated by corrupt humans seeking power is a source of trouble.

Believing in God not bad. Blindly swallowing everything fed to you by those prentending to have your 'best intentions' is bad.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The trial was public and there was a jury deciding the verdict. It wasn't done behind close doors, or public show trials, as it often was in the middle ages in europe. Torture (not up to par with europe though) and jail waiting times aside, the final verdict came down to a jury. Without spectral evidence, the most damaging of which involved the girls pretending to be possessed in the court house during the trial, the convictions wouldn't have occured. In one case a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury (which would have freed the accused), but they reconsidered after the girls started acting possessed in the court house. They took advantage of preexisting conditions, and many of the townspeople were caught up in it (though some didn't believe it).

The main accusers were the ministers daughter and her friends. Considering the ministers slave, homeless people, old isolated ladies, as well as influential and highly respected people in the community were accused, you can't really say that the minister was simply accusing anyone who was a danger to him. The people on the edges of society were accused first, and then it worked its way up to the elites as the accusers became braver.



I think you're saying the same thing as I am about the devil. But the crucible follows the same general outline of what happened, and the main events are relatively accurate, at least for what you'd expect it to be. Any general discussion of the salem witch trial will have many similarities. But it's part of the local history around here, so you get a lot more exposure than simply from the crucible when you live here, plus whatever reading you do elsewhere.

In many ways the salem witch trials, while interesting, are not a good case study of witch trials as a whole. Particular events sparked it and sent it spiralling out of control, and it was focused mainly, though not entirely, around a small group of accusors, who without it would not have happened. It arose in very different circumstances, outside of the fear of the devil and the obvious connection with religion, than most others.[/QUOTE]

I can't really say that the minister was accusing those oppesed to him? Why not? Is there some evidence to the contrary? Children, even those in the their teens, are impressionable. All it would take is a little egging on from the minister to his daughter to get someone accused of practicing witchcraft. That didn't even have to happen intentionally, they after all like you said earlier pressured. The ministers were among those questioning the accusing girls, who do you think would pop into the minister's head first? Besides I said they were accused, I never stated an order. Naturally the people who stuck out as oddities in the community were conveient & easy scapegoats at first, then it grew to those that were in the way or were angry with someone. There seems to be reasoning that the minister Parris was a force behind the trails, as he was ousted from the town in the following years and his practice taken.

As for the conduct of the trial, I suppose that depends on your definition of "not far removed" and possible the middle ages is not an accurate time placement, but rather the same things happened centuries before in Europe. Sure they had juries, but does that really matter? I'ts like putting a band-aid over a bullet wound. Look at witch trails such as the hunts in Arras France in the mid-15th century, which was over two centuries earlier. The happenings are extremely similar to those of the salem witch trials. A hermit is accused, who under torture accuses others, the madness spreads even the upper crust of the community being involved. Even the after affects were similar. The court proceedings did have juries, but they were alomst like a figure head for the court. Witch trials and punishments were basicly public entertainment for people back then, and in the case of salem it was the people's hysteria that was the source of the problem, so bringing the public in makes little difference. While the accused were allowed a defense (if anyone would come forward on their behalf), they did not have a capable advocate and essentially had to defend themselves. That was a feeble effort especially for a scoiety that basically treated women as second class citizens, their knowledge about law was quite limited. Those that were oddities rarely had any defense at all as hardly anyone would testify to their behalf, not to mention they were ususally tortured before the trails began. Here's the basics of the witch trial:

Accused is allowed witnesses on their behalf if any are willing, then the accusers testify against them, then they are allowed a meager petition to the court if possible. Throw all that in with tortute and jail time as you mentioned, and it's really very similar to things happening 2-3 centuries prior. The addition of a jury made little difference, if they had them in Europe back then the results would have hardly changed. They same hysteria created by public officials then was the same transfered onto the people in Salem.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Collumn A and B.

It could be argued that Religion was instituted and maintained to keep the ignorant masses ignorant. 'Dont worry about anything, I'm doing God's work to save your soul, you just keep listening to my every command and making your donations so you don't go to Hell'

The 'spiritual leaders' used religion to keep everyone in the dark. They used fear to keep people in line. People were raised from birth to listen to these church figureheads for the good of their soul. They're doing God's work and God loves me, so they couldn't possibly take advantage of me.

Sure, it isn't the structured belief in a higher being and afterlife that causes trouble. However, the way it is perpetuated by corrupt humans seeking power is a source of trouble.

Believing in God not bad. Blindly swallowing everything fed to you by those prentending to have your 'best intentions' is bad.[/QUOTE]


I can buy that, though it's still the work of man and not religion. Although, history has taught us that corruption and destruction by humans seeking power doesn't always require the involvement religion. Perhaps it is the gullible nature of society those who don't seek to enlighten themselves and further their knowledge will never achieve it and those in power are happy to keep it that way becuase it means more for them. The position of the reasearch that started this thread (or at least as I read it) is that religion or religious practice causes problems for scoeities. Personally I believe the problems stem more from how that society views and uses religion, not from the religion itself.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I can't really say that the minister was accusing those oppesed to him? Why not? Is there some evidence to the contrary? Children, even those in the their teens, are impressionable. All it would take is a little egging on from the minister to his daughter to get someone accused of practicing witchcraft. That didn't even have to happen intentionally, they after all like you said earlier pressured. The ministers were among those questioning the accusing girls, who do you think would pop into the minister's head first? [/quote]

They were pressured into telling what happened, who made them sick and possessed, it wasn't just the minister who was directing the accusations. There isn't any evidence, that I have read, that he was directing them to accuse certain people, which is what I thought you said.


As for the conduct of the trial, I suppose that depends on your definition of "not far removed" and possible the middle ages is not an accurate time placement, but rather the same things happened centuries before in Europe. Sure they had juries, but does that really matter? I'ts like putting a band-aid over a bullet wound. Look at witch trails such as the hunts in Arras France in the mid-15th century, which was over two centuries earlier. The happenings are extremely similar to those of the salem witch trials. A hermit is accused, who under torture accuses others, the madness spreads even the upper crust of the community being involved. Even the after affects were similar. The court proceedings did have juries, but they were alomst like a figure head for the court. Witch trials and punishments were basicly public entertainment for people back then, and in the case of salem it was the people's hysteria that was the source of the problem, so bringing the public in makes little difference. While the accused were allowed a defense (if anyone would come forward on their behalf), they did not have a capable advocate and essentially had to defend themselves. That was a feeble effort especially for a scoiety that basically treated women as second class citizens, their knowledge about law was quite limited. Those that were oddities rarely had any defense at all as hardly anyone would testify to their behalf, not to mention they were ususally tortured before the trails began. Here's the basics of the witch trial:

Accused is allowed witnesses on their behalf if any are willing, then the accusers testify against them, then they are allowed a meager petition to the court if possible. Throw all that in with tortute and jail time as you mentioned, and it's really very similar to things happening 2-3 centuries prior. The addition of a jury made little difference, if they had them in Europe back then the results would have hardly changed. They same hysteria created by public officials then was the same transfered onto the people in Salem.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there were some accused who did have supporters, petitions, and a good defense on their side, and were on their way (or recieved in one case) a not guilty verdit initially. But, if you believed that witches were among you, seeing girls appears possessed was good reason to convict. I don't know very much about the evolution of the court system in europe, so if you move it out of the middle ages I'm not sure at what point it was comparable to the setup in salem, or if the average court system was equal, or better, than that even in 1692. I know it was a better system than most of the inquisitions in europe, which were still taking place at the time, but that's about it.

Now all the backroom stuff, getting people to confess (which saved you from execution) and the whole non courtroom process was similar.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I can buy that, though it's still the work of man and not religion. Although, history has taught us that corruption and destruction by humans seeking power doesn't always require the involvement religion. Perhaps it is the gullible nature of society those who don't seek to enlighten themselves and further their knowledge will never achieve it and those in power are happy to keep it that way becuase it means more for them. The position of the reasearch that started this thread (or at least as I read it) is that religion or religious practice causes problems for scoeities. Personally I believe the problems stem more from how that society views and uses religion, not from the religion itself.[/QUOTE]

I also think that the article really needs to differentiate between different religions. Not all religions repudiate the findings of science, attempt to force all children to be taught their creation myths, and work the litigation system to take away women's rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top