...so even that 'religion' isn't free from those that totally, completely and utterly miss the message...

And if the motivations of these people were never religious, if religion were only "an excuse" as the yacht clubbers vapidly claim, then we should also see the Amish and the Quakers bombing and shooting up people who offend them and make fun of their religion.

Interesting take, but Richard Nixon was a Quaker, and you might want to read up on the Amish mafia. Intolerant violent people can always justify their violent behavior whether for reason of religion or patriotism, a form of national religion.

of Richard Nixon and his religious cohorts making death threat or shooting up places of business because someone made fun of their religion. Come to think of it, have the phrases "Quaker Death Threat" and "Quaker Terrorist" ever been used in the history of the universe?

And while you're at it, entertain us all during your stay and point us to your favorite sources on the so-called "Amish Mafia". Please…we need the laughs…being an atheist is so grim and dire all day long. Nothing to do but take my socks down to the river and wash them out.

Terrorist is frequently used when governments are describing their non-state opponents. Thus Palestinians are terrorists when the Israeli government talks. Muslims are terrorists even when defending their countries against US aggression. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon dropped more bombs on Vietnam, when considering total tonnage, then were dropped in WW2. Harry Truman caused the deaths of over 200,000 Japanese in the terror attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I have never heard him referred to as an American terrorist. In my eyes all three are Christian terrorists. The corporate media will never call a US president a terrorist.

As to the Amish Mafia, there are cases of Amish hardliners forcibly cutting the hair of their non-conforming children, but I was using the phrase in a hyperbolic way.

As to believers and non-believers, I respect your beliefs, whatever they are, and would never presume to judge you because of them. Live and let live is the only way to go.

to either the OP or my post. Makes me wonder what actually drew you here. And no, it's really not possible to use the phrase "Amish Mafia" in a hyperbolic way. You certainly weren't.

Enjoy your stay..hope it'll be smooth sailing for you.

There was one family who was ostracized by one community and decided to get revenge.....not at all typical of the Amish. I live in an area where there are a lot of Amish and also where there was a Mafia presence. Although they are pretty hardcore in their religious beliefs, and are not great at caring for their animals, and their kids are probably as bad as any hoodlum, they are a very peaceful people. One nut case family and all of a sudden there is an "Amish Mafia". Give me a break.

it's a REALITY TV Show. So it's real.

I love people who have been on DU less than, say, a week, and find their way to this little well-hidden group, out of all the groups, and just start posting away.

Why, it's as if they had the link saved already.

Lemme guess...long time reader, uh, firstish time poster....

and cut his visit short. Why am I not surprised?

Certainly seemed to be.

Not even in a. " hyperbolic" sense. But some folk just can't bear it when their bluff gets called and they have to actually try to defend groundless claims. A very common tactic over in Religion, if I'm not mistaken. And among yachters.

Because he was extra harsh on the allies of Hitler? Looking back with 20/20 hindsight on the effects of Nuclear warfare is easy to pass judgement, but you have to ignore a whole buttload of history to do it.

And none of the three you mentioned did any of that in the name of god, or defense of their chosen deity, so your comparison falls apart on multiple levels.

Interesting how people will blame or condemn a particular philosophy for the actions of those who claim to believe in that philosophy. I would not blame all Americans for America's crimes in the world, nor would I blame all Muslims for the actions of a few claiming to be Muslim. People will use what they feel they must to justify their actions. Millions have been slaughtered in the name of religion, millions have been slaughtered in the name of nationalism. How do we get past the violence and intolerance?

Especially as a means of deciphering "truth" (in quotes because it means different things to different people). Can science play a role in getting past the violence and intolerance?

Even though psychology and psychiatry are not predictive disciplines, they are invaluable in analyzing the "why" of behavior. I do not see how anyone can be opposed to science or the scientific method. How can we evolve and advance without it? Without science we would still be wearing animal skins in our caves.
How do we get past violence without getting past fear, the motivator for most violence?
How do we, as John Lennon put it, "Imagine"?
Do you think there is such a thing as truth in the abstract?

Truth may be redefined by anyone at any time for any reason (often a nefarious reason). And those who claim themselves as the only source of "truth" are often using the term to manipulate a person or situation.

We can never get past fear since it's an evolutionary trait that kept the species alive for millions of years. But I think we can understand that our fear is often irrational, and that religion, mysticism and superstition aren't truly answers to the fear. (Religion often makes its adherents MORE afraid rather than less).

Until 1978, Mormonism explicitly institutionalized the idea that black people were the cursed offspring of Cain, could not receive sacrament/temple, etc. They got a celestial fax and revised the faith in '78, but they've already proven the concept.

Catholicism institutionalizes the idea that contraceptives, abortion, and other reproductive freedom, are sins. Scrap it.

Etc.


I'm perfectly happy to scrap any secular ideologies that institutionalize bigotry, sexism, racism, nationalism, etc, because I do not have any sacred cows.

And shame on you for that attempt at false equivalency.

I agree with your first 3 sentences, but what false equivalency do you refer to?

We've seen this claim made repeatedly over the last few weeks, but somehow none of you can find a single example of anyone here on DU "blaming all muslims for the actions of a few". Instead we are told by the same people that the idiots out slaughtering, by their own words, in the name of their god, are not "true believers", the proof of which is of course, that they are out slaughtering in the name of their god.

"millions have been slaughtered in the name of nationalism" - indeed, and perhaps you would agree that there is a problem with nationalism that civilized society needs to guard against? Or are the nationalist slaughterers also not "true nationalists"?

NONE of that is related to sincerly held religious beliefs or to any major main stream religion on the planet.

Why can't you atheists get that through your noggins?

You have been told this many times.

It's those fools who have distorted the Koran and insist on vengence for blasphemy or insults that are the problem. Fools like ISIS, the Taliban and Boko Haram.

It is true that the majority of Muslims, probably the vast majority, overlook these blasphemies and insults and don't seek vengence, much like Christians have learned to do over the centuries.

It is also true that extremists who have used the Koran for their own ends - while focusing on some passage while neglecting others - have modern weapons that can cause much more havoc than medieval extremists could. So we hear about them quicker.

Christianity has had plenty of hardcore extremists; there are still some, but fortunately not as hard-core and violent as Islam's extremists.

Still, religion itself is the root of the problem. Without religion, crazy people would surely find another means to make havoc, but it would be WITHOUT RELIGION.

Ultimately, the Muslims need to tamp down their own Muslim extremists. As long as the Christians try to fight them, it just ain't gonna work.

I'm not crazy about that line of thinking. I mean, doesn't EVERYONE "distort" their holy book to some degree or another? As you admit, the Muslim extremists focus on one passage while ignoring another. Well, the pacifist ignores the former, and focuses on the latter. Who, then, is "distorting"? Both? Neither?

Let's face it - in the Torah, New Testament, AND the Koran, there is repulsive shit that no human should believe or follow!

I agree about religion being the root of the problem - and what makes religion particularly unique and troublesome is its built-in ability to insulate itself from any kind of discussion or debate. "Because god says so" closes off communication.

Perhaps distortion isn't the best choice of words there. The idea is more to the "focus on some passages, not on others." In a very broad sense, that is a "distortion." Very broad. Not intentionally misinterpreting, but selective attention which can make some think that "they are all that way."

The sooner we chunk the whole fetid pile of religious hooey, the better.

Till then, we will have to deal with the wackos who use it for their own nefarious ends. And if the Muslims themselves do not make that a priority, we are in for a long haul of violence and bloodletting.

"Selective attention" to the passages you like, ignoring the ones you don't. Because both good and bad parts are found in all three of the Abrahamic religions' holy books, anyone who picks the parts they want to follow is doing that. (And everyone HAS to pick some parts, and ignore others, since the books are so self-contradictory in the first place.)

"we will have to deal with the wackos who use it for their own nefarious ends." - But could they not be sincerely convinced they are doing it for their god, not for themselves?