7 ms·

Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive to the larger population, in the long run. There is very little true tolerance from anyone who wishes

Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive to the larger population, in the long run. There is very little true tolerance from anyone who wishes religion to guide governing. It may be horribly violent attacks like this in Islam, but just as quickly it pushes for mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds in the U.S. I may get downvoted, but I fail to see how religion will ever help guide the human race to a better place. You may be able to point to impoverished places where missionaries are saving lives and providing support, and yes, that is fantastic. But just as quickly it turns into imprisoning homosexuals and local government policies being driven by religious dogma. Organized religion scares and saddens me. I wish it didn't, I'm aware there are many religious participants on HN. I do not mean to cause personal offense.

brlewis 11y ago
Religion is a pretense for violence, not the original motivation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape#Dying_to_Win http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape#Dying_to_Win Human power structures are what you should fear. A human in a powerful position will be motivated to silence voices that threaten that power.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I fear them, too :)
arethuza 11y ago
Your comment reminded me the scene from Kingdom of Heaven where religion is discussed: I put no stock in Religion. By the word of religion, I've seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the "Will of God". I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. And goodness - what God desires - [pointing at his head then heart] is here and here. And what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man, [smiles] or not.
- waps 11y ago
  I would recognize that this is effectively restating one of the basic precepts of Christianity (do unto others ...). Islam, and any other religion, are very different (as you would expect, it's a different religion after all). The Islamic attitude to this can be found by googling "enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil". And it very much disagrees with that statement. Loosely translated, what "God desires" in islam is that you force others - without violence if possible, with violence if necessary - to follow islam's rules, both in positive sense, and the negative sense. There is an entire legal theory around this which you can read if you like. Also, in islam, there is only one state, one law, and the state encompasses all. There is no police force in sharia, everyone is police, there is no-one without personal responsibility for following sharia, and policing others' following of sharia. Note that in some ways - in theological theory - it is almost the opposite. A Christian should believe in Christ in his/her heart and mind, and outward appearances do not influence his relation with God. From a Muslim, on the other hand, heart and mind don't matter, nor does belief (says so in the quran), but following the rules does.
notdonspaulding 11y ago
> I fail to see how religion will ever help guide the human race to a better place. Then you fail to see any progress the US has made in the world at large in the past 200 years. The US was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. http://www.godandculture.com/blog/ravi-zacharias-on-a-mormon-in-the-white-house http://www.godandculture.com/blog/ravi-zacharias-on-a-mormon... > Organized religion scares and saddens me. I know you didn't say you were atheist, but just so we're clear: atheism is a religion as well. http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion
- themartorana 11y ago
  The U.S. was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. The moral code of "do not kill" and "do not steal" etc. existed long before Judaism. "Judeo-Christian" - a term coined in the 1950s - is an attempt to claim human decency and respect as a recent religious invention, and is ridiculous. Speaking of, there's an effort to replace "Judeo-Christian" with "Abrahamic" so as to include Islam in that group - would you agree? As for "atheist" being a religion, no it's not.[0] Reason.com is a libertarian/conservative-leaning publication that has a bias in this game. Their labeling atheism a religion is an attempt to take teeth out of the argument of religion as a social negative. Try using the actual definition instead. That said, I'm more agnostic than atheist. I believe we can't know if there is a supreme being or beings until they reveal themselves. Since there are 270 or so "large" religious groups and any number of smaller offshoots of those, each with adherents that would tell me theirs is the one true religion, and condemn me as a non-believer with anything from pity to death, I'm going to stay agnostic for right now. I sure hope there is a god, though. I'd hate to think that humans are the best the universe can do. [0.a] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t [0.b] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
  - lake99 11y ago
    > Reason.com is a libertarian/conservative-leaning publication that has a bias in this game. No, that was an article by one of their religious-leaning members. Other atheist-leaning members often write articles that are more friendly towards atheists/atheism, and they don't claim atheism is a religion. See the range here: https://reason.com/tags/atheism https://reason.com/tags/atheism
kghose 11y ago
Aww, you took a news item about Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh and put in a comment about gender politics in the US south. This is sure to get up-voted, because you know, Amerika is bad. But just to be sure, you put in 'I may get downvoted'. That was a cute touch. No one on HN can resist that combination.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- angrybits 11y ago
  In case you're curious, you're getting downvoted because you told the emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes.
  - dang 11y ago
    That's not true. The root comment broke the HN guidelines, but that reply did so as well, and by being personally acidic, was worse.
  - kghose 11y ago
    Hey angrybits! My original plan was to spin my HN score counter down to zero by making true and blunt statements about the drivel posted on this site (which would, natch, be down voted). Communication to me from a person identifying as a moderator suggests to me that the deplorable tone and content of this forum is managed and encouraged by moderators. I have now lost interest in this site. I'm now hanging out lobste.rs which I find much more meaningful.
fit2rule 11y ago
>Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive to the larger population, in the long run. This is simply not true. What is true is that group-think which allows people to completely disregard others in such a fashion that they are willing to murder, is destructive to the larger population. Religion has held together many a society which would have cannibalized itself time and again, over and over. It is simply the desire to abandon morality and murder a fellow living being which must be dealt with, and Religion definitely does not have a monopoly on this facet of our social existence.
WhitneyLand 11y ago
How do you reconcile this with the fact that religion seems to be intrinsic to human culture? >Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive >to the larger population, in the long run.
- themartorana 11y ago
  The same way I do with the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat. They are based off of early attempts to explain the unknown or the unexplainable (especially death), and recognized by a few as a fantastic way to hold influence and sway (and iron-fisted rule) over the general population. We learned the Earth wasn't the center of the universe (a fact Religion had a hard time letting go of) and that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. We grow as a species with knowledge we obtain. Left completely uneducated and alone, I believe religion would spring up as quickly as it did before - but now we have the benefit of vast amounts of knowledge at our fingertips.
- selectnull 11y ago
  Why do you think religion is intrinsic to human culture? Personally, I view it as a bad product sold to humanity (in the times in which most people were poor and uneducated) for the benefits of few snake oil peddlers that got incredibly rich and powerful in the process.
  - WhitneyLand 11y ago
    Look at the vast number of human civilizations and cultures. Have enough been secular to argue it's not intrinsic? It's really an open question. Some believe that with enough prosperity, education, and safety, religion will no longer be needed. However I regularly have discussions on the earth being 6000 years old with people who have those traits in abundance. Here's one reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386533/Belief-religion-simply-universal-human-nature.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386533/Belief-relig...
    - ionised 11y ago
mbrock 11y ago
"Destructive in the long run" is nearly empty of content. You could trivially make the same claim about the steam engine. (Industry leads to pollution leads to disaster.) Organized anything is powerful and dangerous. Organized goverment, organized commerce, organized labor, organized rationalism, organized kittens. Animals are scary and dangerous, humans most of all.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
American Mormons seem to use religion in fairly constructive ways - choose pretty much any social indicator, and they drastically outperform nearly any other group at a similar income level. Realistically, most of the violence perpetrated by religion these days is done by a subset of Islam. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any attacks comparable to 9/11, 26/11, Baga or similar that were perpetrated by anyone besides Islamists. A quick google search finds an article on Daily Beast which purports to disagree, but can only come up with a small number of minor attacks. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-ter...
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
How can an inanimate idea be held at fault? People use Religion to do bad things, not the other way around. Get rid of Religion and people will justify doing bad things for non-religious reasons. You don't think people have used Science as an excuse to do evil?
dang 11y ago
Please don't take HN threads off on generic ideological tangents. This comment is the very definition of one, and has had the predictable effect. Especially please don't conduct religious flamewars on HN. There are other places on the internet to fulminate against insert-opposite-position-about-religion-here.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I'm sure you can understand how if an article with religion at its core makes it to the front of HN, discussions about that religion are completely on topic and justified (and not at all generic). This is not meant as a flame war or a tangent. When I say I find religion scary, it's in response to the article pointing out that a blogger who focused on the absence of religious tolerance was hacked to death with a machete by members of the very religion he stood against. I don't think I'll come to your way of thinking about my post (no surprise) but I'm a bit confused why HN would allow an article to get to the front page if it doesn't want the contents therein discussed. Edit in response to Being Kinder. Be Kind http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html
  - dang 11y ago
    Your comment didn't discuss the particulars of the article. It went straight to generalities about religion being destructive that could have been made in any of a thousand unrelated threads. That's why I called it a generic tangent. Those reliably lead to flamewars: because they're no longer anchored in specific material, people just use the occasion to repeat grand stock responses. Your comment wasn't uncivil (which we're grateful for) but it predictably opened the floodgates for many that were. HN doesn't "allow" articles to get to the front page. They get there on their own; sometimes they then get flagged or penalized, as this one did. This story, though horrific, wasn't off-topic per se—but HN is incapable of conducting a meaningful discussion about anything so inflammatory, so in practice it ends up being so. Edit: We disagree, but your effort to be kind is more important than that. I appreciate it.

brlewis 11y ago

Religion is a pretense for violence, not the original motivation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape#Dying_to_Win http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape#Dying_to_Win Human power structures are what you should fear. A human in a powerful position will be motivated to silence voices that threaten that power.

themartorana 11y ago
I fear them, too :)

arethuza 11y ago

Your comment reminded me the scene from Kingdom of Heaven where religion is discussed: I put no stock in Religion. By the word of religion, I've seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the "Will of God". I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. And goodness - what God desires - [pointing at his head then heart] is here and here. And what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man, [smiles] or not.

waps 11y ago
I would recognize that this is effectively restating one of the basic precepts of Christianity (do unto others ...). Islam, and any other religion, are very different (as you would expect, it's a different religion after all). The Islamic attitude to this can be found by googling "enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil". And it very much disagrees with that statement. Loosely translated, what "God desires" in islam is that you force others - without violence if possible, with violence if necessary - to follow islam's rules, both in positive sense, and the negative sense. There is an entire legal theory around this which you can read if you like. Also, in islam, there is only one state, one law, and the state encompasses all. There is no police force in sharia, everyone is police, there is no-one without personal responsibility for following sharia, and policing others' following of sharia. Note that in some ways - in theological theory - it is almost the opposite. A Christian should believe in Christ in his/her heart and mind, and outward appearances do not influence his relation with God. From a Muslim, on the other hand, heart and mind don't matter, nor does belief (says so in the quran), but following the rules does.

notdonspaulding 11y ago

> I fail to see how religion will ever help guide the human race to a better place. Then you fail to see any progress the US has made in the world at large in the past 200 years. The US was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. http://www.godandculture.com/blog/ravi-zacharias-on-a-mormon-in-the-white-house http://www.godandculture.com/blog/ravi-zacharias-on-a-mormon... > Organized religion scares and saddens me. I know you didn't say you were atheist, but just so we're clear: atheism is a religion as well. http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion

themartorana 11y ago
The U.S. was not founded on Judeo-Christian values. The moral code of "do not kill" and "do not steal" etc. existed long before Judaism. "Judeo-Christian" - a term coined in the 1950s - is an attempt to claim human decency and respect as a recent religious invention, and is ridiculous. Speaking of, there's an effort to replace "Judeo-Christian" with "Abrahamic" so as to include Islam in that group - would you agree? As for "atheist" being a religion, no it's not.[0] Reason.com is a libertarian/conservative-leaning publication that has a bias in this game. Their labeling atheism a religion is an attempt to take teeth out of the argument of religion as a social negative. Try using the actual definition instead. That said, I'm more agnostic than atheist. I believe we can't know if there is a supreme being or beings until they reveal themselves. Since there are 270 or so "large" religious groups and any number of smaller offshoots of those, each with adherents that would tell me theirs is the one true religion, and condemn me as a non-believer with anything from pity to death, I'm going to stay agnostic for right now. I sure hope there is a god, though. I'd hate to think that humans are the best the universe can do. [0.a] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic?s=t [0.b] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
- lake99 11y ago
  > Reason.com is a libertarian/conservative-leaning publication that has a bias in this game. No, that was an article by one of their religious-leaning members. Other atheist-leaning members often write articles that are more friendly towards atheists/atheism, and they don't claim atheism is a religion. See the range here: https://reason.com/tags/atheism https://reason.com/tags/atheism

kghose 11y ago

Aww, you took a news item about Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh and put in a comment about gender politics in the US south. This is sure to get up-voted, because you know, Amerika is bad. But just to be sure, you put in 'I may get downvoted'. That was a cute touch. No one on HN can resist that combination.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
angrybits 11y ago
In case you're curious, you're getting downvoted because you told the emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes.
- dang 11y ago
  That's not true. The root comment broke the HN guidelines, but that reply did so as well, and by being personally acidic, was worse.
- kghose 11y ago
  Hey angrybits! My original plan was to spin my HN score counter down to zero by making true and blunt statements about the drivel posted on this site (which would, natch, be down voted). Communication to me from a person identifying as a moderator suggests to me that the deplorable tone and content of this forum is managed and encouraged by moderators. I have now lost interest in this site. I'm now hanging out lobste.rs which I find much more meaningful.

fit2rule 11y ago

>Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive to the larger population, in the long run. This is simply not true. What is true is that group-think which allows people to completely disregard others in such a fashion that they are willing to murder, is destructive to the larger population. Religion has held together many a society which would have cannibalized itself time and again, over and over. It is simply the desire to abandon morality and murder a fellow living being which must be dealt with, and Religion definitely does not have a monopoly on this facet of our social existence.

WhitneyLand 11y ago

How do you reconcile this with the fact that religion seems to be intrinsic to human culture? >Religion, held at any level above personal, is destructive >to the larger population, in the long run.

themartorana 11y ago
The same way I do with the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat. They are based off of early attempts to explain the unknown or the unexplainable (especially death), and recognized by a few as a fantastic way to hold influence and sway (and iron-fisted rule) over the general population. We learned the Earth wasn't the center of the universe (a fact Religion had a hard time letting go of) and that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. We grow as a species with knowledge we obtain. Left completely uneducated and alone, I believe religion would spring up as quickly as it did before - but now we have the benefit of vast amounts of knowledge at our fingertips.
selectnull 11y ago
Why do you think religion is intrinsic to human culture? Personally, I view it as a bad product sold to humanity (in the times in which most people were poor and uneducated) for the benefits of few snake oil peddlers that got incredibly rich and powerful in the process.
- WhitneyLand 11y ago
  Look at the vast number of human civilizations and cultures. Have enough been secular to argue it's not intrinsic? It's really an open question. Some believe that with enough prosperity, education, and safety, religion will no longer be needed. However I regularly have discussions on the earth being 6000 years old with people who have those traits in abundance. Here's one reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386533/Belief-religion-simply-universal-human-nature.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386533/Belief-relig...
  - ionised 11y ago

mbrock 11y ago

"Destructive in the long run" is nearly empty of content. You could trivially make the same claim about the steam engine. (Industry leads to pollution leads to disaster.) Organized anything is powerful and dangerous. Organized goverment, organized commerce, organized labor, organized rationalism, organized kittens. Animals are scary and dangerous, humans most of all.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

American Mormons seem to use religion in fairly constructive ways - choose pretty much any social indicator, and they drastically outperform nearly any other group at a similar income level. Realistically, most of the violence perpetrated by religion these days is done by a subset of Islam. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any attacks comparable to 9/11, 26/11, Baga or similar that were perpetrated by anyone besides Islamists. A quick google search finds an article on Daily Beast which purports to disagree, but can only come up with a small number of minor attacks. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-ter...

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

How can an inanimate idea be held at fault? People use Religion to do bad things, not the other way around. Get rid of Religion and people will justify doing bad things for non-religious reasons. You don't think people have used Science as an excuse to do evil?

dang 11y ago

Please don't take HN threads off on generic ideological tangents. This comment is the very definition of one, and has had the predictable effect. Especially please don't conduct religious flamewars on HN. There are other places on the internet to fulminate against insert-opposite-position-about-religion-here.

themartorana 11y ago
I'm sure you can understand how if an article with religion at its core makes it to the front of HN, discussions about that religion are completely on topic and justified (and not at all generic). This is not meant as a flame war or a tangent. When I say I find religion scary, it's in response to the article pointing out that a blogger who focused on the absence of religious tolerance was hacked to death with a machete by members of the very religion he stood against. I don't think I'll come to your way of thinking about my post (no surprise) but I'm a bit confused why HN would allow an article to get to the front page if it doesn't want the contents therein discussed. Edit in response to Being Kinder. Be Kind http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html
- dang 11y ago
  Your comment didn't discuss the particulars of the article. It went straight to generalities about religion being destructive that could have been made in any of a thousand unrelated threads. That's why I called it a generic tangent. Those reliably lead to flamewars: because they're no longer anchored in specific material, people just use the occasion to repeat grand stock responses. Your comment wasn't uncivil (which we're grateful for) but it predictably opened the floodgates for many that were. HN doesn't "allow" articles to get to the front page. They get there on their own; sometimes they then get flagged or penalized, as this one did. This story, though horrific, wasn't off-topic per se—but HN is incapable of conducting a meaningful discussion about anything so inflammatory, so in practice it ends up being so. Edit: We disagree, but your effort to be kind is more important than that. I appreciate it.