5 ms·

I used to think like that, but have come to realize it's people that caused all that. There are many different 'tribes', for want of a better name, be they bas

I used to think like that, but have come to realize it's people that caused all that. There are many different 'tribes', for want of a better name, be they based around religion, nationality, personality cults, even sport, they can be used for good and bad. But it's the leaders, the people, that make that decision. After all, they may not have gone to war for a Karshadian, but they have for a Trump.

Layke1123 5y ago
Religion gives people the ability to do bad things in the name of god or gods that they normally would not do.
ehnto 5y ago
I certainly don't disagree with you, but I think it is still right to blame religion specifically because religion often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. It noticed those traits in humanity you pointed out, and it capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division. Evangelism and then separating you from other groups is built into pretty much all major religions, which is likely why they are still around. Of course a lot of people don't practice that so much now, there are a lot of passive religious people. But it's built into the fabric of the idea of religion I feel, which is worth criticizing.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > It is still right to blame religion (...) often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. (...) capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division You singling out religion is saying more about you than it says about religion and religious people. I don't even need to squint my eyes too much to see how your description still applies to all types of different ideologies - Trotskyists, "being Woke" and Racial Supremacists are all examples that come to mind.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Spare me the personal jab. It's a discussion about organised religion, in which I am criticising it specifically, it doesn't mean I think religion is the lone offender. Perhaps my using the word "blame" in the grandparent wasn't very clear. I mean blame it specifically for the issues it specifically creates, and not just let it go blame-free because humans would have had wars anyway. Issues such as evangelism in African countries creating religious tensions that wouldn't otherwise exist. To your more reasonable paragraph, of course it can apply to other ideologies. I am just pointing out that religion is quite a bit more organised than most ideologies, hence it's centuries of success. To be super duper clear, I said more organised than most, this doesn't mean I think other ideologies can't be organised in the same ways.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      There is a country with over 1 billion people that sorta-kinda breaks your argument. Its leadership is staunchly anti-religion, and I heard they are quite organized. (They are also responsible for a large number of contemporary violations of human-rights and atrocities going on in the world)
      - ehnto 5y ago
        Which is evidence toward the idea that organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. I am not saying that organized religion is the only ideological method to organized people into wrongdoing, just that it is one of them, and it's one of the most effective ones so far.
        rglullis 5y ago
        > organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. If your point can be made by replacing "religion" with anything that can characterize a group or society, your point is not about religion. You are trying to make a particularization based on a generality. That is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, it is also the kind of thing that leads to biases, prejudices and "othering", which ironically enough is one of the things that do lead to one of the most effective ways to lead people into polarization and conflicts based on segregation of individuals.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    The article is explicitly about religion. Your last paragraph is certainly true. In the end, how large are those groups compared to religious ones? Catholicism, a sect of Christianity, has 1.2 billion followers alone. Scale matters.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > 1.2 billion followers alone. How many of those Christians are promoters of human-rights violations? How many self-professed Christians went on to support leaders that used religion to justify wars? Now tell me how many people still support Communist/Socialist revolutions, even after seeing all this historical bloodbaths that they brought. How many people still praise Che Guevara even after they are made aware of how many people he killed in the name of "justice"? How many people still would support Mao? Pol Pot?
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        == How many of those Christians are promoters of human-rights violations?== Any of the ones who put money in a collection plate to help fund the church. Those funds helped pay to cover up human rights abuses. Catholics still support the Vatican, where the leaders live and who were the ones sweeping things under the rug. == Now tell me how many people still support Communist/Socialist revolutions, even after seeing all this historical bloodbaths that they brought.== Talk about moving the goalposts. People still praise early Americans for their Revolution. How many did that kill? How many native Americans were slaughtered by the people we lionize? You know communism and socialism are not the same thing even if you write them next to each other, right? Not to mention that all 1.2 billion Catholics follow the same religion, leadership, and structure. Politics don’t cross the same number of borders. This game can be played all day. Which is likely what you want because it changes the subject off of religion.
        rglullis 5y ago
        Interesting. You want to assign all blame to the followers of the things you disagree with, but you want to find an excuse to the supporters of the things you agree with. > Those funds helped pay to cover up human rights abuses. Possibly true. But the people donating money were not doing it with the intent of "let's help the child molesters go unpunished". On the other hand, I've heard/read from far too many socialists that they fully support Che's actions, or that "those bastards deserved to die."

Layke1123 5y ago

Religion gives people the ability to do bad things in the name of god or gods that they normally would not do.

ehnto 5y ago

I certainly don't disagree with you, but I think it is still right to blame religion specifically because religion often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. It noticed those traits in humanity you pointed out, and it capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division. Evangelism and then separating you from other groups is built into pretty much all major religions, which is likely why they are still around. Of course a lot of people don't practice that so much now, there are a lot of passive religious people. But it's built into the fabric of the idea of religion I feel, which is worth criticizing.

rglullis 5y ago
> It is still right to blame religion (...) often isn't passive and it's intentionally so. (...) capitalizes on them through evangelism and then division You singling out religion is saying more about you than it says about religion and religious people. I don't even need to squint my eyes too much to see how your description still applies to all types of different ideologies - Trotskyists, "being Woke" and Racial Supremacists are all examples that come to mind.
- ehnto 5y ago
  Spare me the personal jab. It's a discussion about organised religion, in which I am criticising it specifically, it doesn't mean I think religion is the lone offender. Perhaps my using the word "blame" in the grandparent wasn't very clear. I mean blame it specifically for the issues it specifically creates, and not just let it go blame-free because humans would have had wars anyway. Issues such as evangelism in African countries creating religious tensions that wouldn't otherwise exist. To your more reasonable paragraph, of course it can apply to other ideologies. I am just pointing out that religion is quite a bit more organised than most ideologies, hence it's centuries of success. To be super duper clear, I said more organised than most, this doesn't mean I think other ideologies can't be organised in the same ways.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    There is a country with over 1 billion people that sorta-kinda breaks your argument. Its leadership is staunchly anti-religion, and I heard they are quite organized. (They are also responsible for a large number of contemporary violations of human-rights and atrocities going on in the world)
    - ehnto 5y ago
      Which is evidence toward the idea that organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. I am not saying that organized religion is the only ideological method to organized people into wrongdoing, just that it is one of them, and it's one of the most effective ones so far.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > organized groups can do great evil, which was my point about religion. If your point can be made by replacing "religion" with anything that can characterize a group or society, your point is not about religion. You are trying to make a particularization based on a generality. That is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, it is also the kind of thing that leads to biases, prejudices and "othering", which ironically enough is one of the things that do lead to one of the most effective ways to lead people into polarization and conflicts based on segregation of individuals.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  The article is explicitly about religion. Your last paragraph is certainly true. In the end, how large are those groups compared to religious ones? Catholicism, a sect of Christianity, has 1.2 billion followers alone. Scale matters.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > 1.2 billion followers alone. How many of those Christians are promoters of human-rights violations? How many self-professed Christians went on to support leaders that used religion to justify wars? Now tell me how many people still support Communist/Socialist revolutions, even after seeing all this historical bloodbaths that they brought. How many people still praise Che Guevara even after they are made aware of how many people he killed in the name of "justice"? How many people still would support Mao? Pol Pot?
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      == How many of those Christians are promoters of human-rights violations?== Any of the ones who put money in a collection plate to help fund the church. Those funds helped pay to cover up human rights abuses. Catholics still support the Vatican, where the leaders live and who were the ones sweeping things under the rug. == Now tell me how many people still support Communist/Socialist revolutions, even after seeing all this historical bloodbaths that they brought.== Talk about moving the goalposts. People still praise early Americans for their Revolution. How many did that kill? How many native Americans were slaughtered by the people we lionize? You know communism and socialism are not the same thing even if you write them next to each other, right? Not to mention that all 1.2 billion Catholics follow the same religion, leadership, and structure. Politics don’t cross the same number of borders. This game can be played all day. Which is likely what you want because it changes the subject off of religion.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        Interesting. You want to assign all blame to the followers of the things you disagree with, but you want to find an excuse to the supporters of the things you agree with. > Those funds helped pay to cover up human rights abuses. Possibly true. But the people donating money were not doing it with the intent of "let's help the child molesters go unpunished". On the other hand, I've heard/read from far too many socialists that they fully support Che's actions, or that "those bastards deserved to die."