I do have sympathy for the argument that writing off an entire religion, or the practitioners of that religion, because of bad behavior by a few of its members, is wholly unfair.
That having been said, if the followers of said religion do not act better or worse than the general population in any statistically relevant way, what's the point?
For example, the Catholic Church triumphantly announced the other day that the incidence rate of pedophilia by clergy "is no higher than that of the general population."
Okay, great, but isn't that damning with faint praise? What's the point of looking to the church as a moral compass if it evidently doesn't matter either way?
I agree completely Smileybone. People use religion as an excuse to start conflicts, and if religion wasn't here they'd simply use something else. The human nature is the reason for the deaths in the world, not religion.
I agree completely Smileybone. People use religion as an excuse to start conflicts, and if religion wasn't here they'd simply use something else. The human nature is the reason for the deaths in the world, not religion.
True, but consider that religion (along with money, emotions, possessions, land, law etc.) are merely tools to justify said conflicts.
I agree completely Smileybone. People use religion as an excuse to start conflicts, and if religion wasn't here they'd simply use something else. The human nature is the reason for the deaths in the world, not religion.
True, but consider that religion (along with money, emotions, possessions, land, law etc.) are merely tools to justify said conflicts.
This guy had it right the whole time...
Cool, you like John Lennon, me too! Religion in most cases does not justify conflicts, people in said religion justify said conflicts. Religion is meant to discourage conflicts. That's my belief any how.
For example, the Catholic Church triumphantly announced the other day that the incidence rate of pedophilia by clergy "is no higher than that of the general population."
Okay, great, but isn't that damning with faint praise? What's the point of looking to the church as a moral compass if it evidently doesn't matter either way?
while it is faint praise indeed, it does address a common misconception about the catholic church
i'm fairly sure that if you asked your average american about the pedophilia rate in the catholic church, he would say it was much higher than the norm, which is simply not the case.
if you reported every single... say rape by methodists... that ever occurred, i don't think it would be long before methodists had a terrible reputation, even though they weren't raping any more or any less than the general population.
For example, the Catholic Church triumphantly announced the other day that the incidence rate of pedophilia by clergy "is no higher than that of the general population."
Okay, great, but isn't that damning with faint praise? What's the point of looking to the church as a moral compass if it evidently doesn't matter either way?
while it is faint praise indeed, it does address a common misconception about the catholic church
i'm fairly sure that if you asked your average american about the pedophilia rate in the catholic church, he would say it was much higher than the norm, which is simply not the case.
if you reported every single... say rape by methodists... that ever occurred, i don't think it would be long before methodists had a terrible reputation, even though they weren't raping any more or any less than the general population.
The thing is, the more you specify or specific you get with social groups, the more narrow the margin is.
While the rate of pedophilia may be equal or less than the general population among the Catholic Church, you have to ask yourself, is that saying much with how many people follow the church vs the world's population?
Troll or not, he has a good point. Most religious people take it extremely personal, therefore any manner of insult or attack against their faith or should something blasphemous arise they more often than not go apeshit and tend to resort to violent reaction.
I never beat someone to death because they call my religion ***. And plenty of people have, even those in my own family.
And I know plenty of other people who wouldn't resort to violence either.
The difference here is, if I get into a debate over religion with someone who is non-religious, and I simply walk away, I don't make the 5 o'clock news. Nobody except me and the person I'm talking to would know about our discussion.
So I think you need to revise your statement, sir, and take a statistics class while you're at it. Also, feel free to look up the definition of "most," since you have no clue what you're talking about.
Troll or not, he has a good point. Most religious people take it extremely personal, therefore any manner of insult or attack against their faith or should something blasphemous arise they more often than not go apeshit and tend to resort to violent reaction.
I never beat someone to death because they call my religion ***. And plenty of people have, even those in my own family.
And I know plenty of other people who wouldn't resort to violence either.
The difference here is, if I get into a debate over religion with someone who is non-religious, and I simply walk away, I don't make the 5 o'clock news. Nobody except me and the person I'm talking to would know about our discussion.
So I think you need to revise your statement, sir, and take a statistics class while you're at it.
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Phoenix.Smileybone said:
Shiva.Weewoo said:
Note that I said most take religion personally. In the end it's up to the individual on whether it becomes a violent reaction or not, but you have to admit; violence is a common side effect to religious conflicts as a whole.
Ya most people you hear of take religion personally. The other several billion who don't make the news everyday obviously don't. Violence is the result of a lot of conflicts in general lol. Anywhere you have the clash of ideas, be it religion, money, favorite channels, violence is always a very possible outcome. Religion is no better or worse imo. And if people weren't fighting over religion, they'd just be fighting over something else.
It was far from my intention to single out religion as the most or only common factor of violent reaction. However, based on the incident at hand, there is a keen correlation between his death and the conflict's circumstances.
There is something else that bothers me. If it would have been ANYONE else that started this thread.. They would have been questioned, and called a troll.. But since Tigerwoods created it...
His post got rated down if you think ppl are playing favorites lol. Ya I agree don't need to see every stinking news clip that is mildly shocking.
Meh.. People have been killing people in the name of god for thousands of years.
To the OP story, religion is irrelevant to changing TV channels and the family just seems like a bunch of freaks regardless.
But religion does cause violence and hate when it comes to certain issues and groups:
Christianity, Islam, and to a lesser extent Judaism's treatment of gays and lesbians. Islamic treatment of women. etc. These are not some isolated cases, but a statistically significant influence to hate.
There is no "excuse to scapegoat religion" here. Religion is the center cause.
If his family beat him to death because they wanted to watch Lady Gaga shake her *** on MTV, would you blame Lady Gaga?
You didn't read my posts at all did you?
I read your posts. You're grasping at straws. You're putting blame on a system of beliefs instead of putting the blame on the people who actually committed the crime. That's ***.
Quote:
PS: No need to get uppity.
I didn't realize poking holes through your theory that religious people = violent is "getting uppity."
I'm not saying it's the sole cause. I am saying there is a relevance. It's obvious the assailants were batshit crazy to begin with, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the fact that they were religious that amplified the conflict to the degree it took. Sadly, resulting in one's death.
No, you didn't. If his family beat him to death because they wanted to watch Lady Gaga shake her *** on MTV, would you blame Lady Gaga?
You're a bit slow
Lady Gaga has not been causing holy wars for thousands of years.
Lady Gaga does not cause people to fly air planes into sky scrapers
People who like Lady Gaga do not arm their children with assault rifles, and bombs.
If you kill in the name of Lady Gaga, it doesn't make you a good person.
Only god can create this kind madness.
No, I'd say you're a bit slow.
Deities haven't been starting holy wars for thousands of years. Stupid people have.
Deities didn't fly planes into sky scrapers. Stupid people did.
Deities don't arm their children with assault rifles and bombs. Stupid people did. (And the families involved in Columbine tried to blame Marylin Manson and had everyone believing them for a while there, champ.)
If you kill in the name of a deity, that makes you a stupid person.
For someone who abhors religion such as you do, and doesn't believe in it at all, you sure like to place the blame on a mythical, fake creature when it suits you.
Just keep in mind that religion works both ways. It can be a powerful tool of self-empowerment through faith, but at the same time can be used as a tool or excuse for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
Ultimately the action comes down to the individual, but the weapon of choice still exists.
Just keep in mind that religion works both ways. It can be a powerful tool of self-empowerment through faith, but at the same time can be used as a tool or excuse for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
So can money. I don't see you condemning money like you do religion.
Just keep in mind that religion works both ways. It can be a powerful tool of self-empowerment through faith, but at the same time can be used as a tool or excuse for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
So can money. I don't see you boycotting money like you do religion.
Sadly our modern society runs on the stuff. I need to work to keep a roof above my head, clothes on my back, food on the plate and bills paid. Religion is optional.
I'm not singling out religion, but it is the subject at hand. No need to deviate.
Just keep in mind that religion works both ways. It can be a powerful tool of self-empowerment through faith, but at the same time can be used as a tool or excuse for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
So can money. I don't see you boycotting money like you do religion.
Sadly our modern society runs on the stuff. I need to work to keep a roof above my head, clothes on my back, food on the plate and bills paid. Religion is optional.
I'm not singling out religion, but it is the subject at hand. No need to deviate.
I'm not singling out religion, but it is the subject at hand. No need to deviate.
Deviate? LOL. Pointing out your hypocrisy is not deviating. It's simply getting to the bottom of your reason to make such blanket, unfounded assumptions and then attempt to backpedal.
If religion was as horrible as you and others like you claim it is, the human race would've killed themselves off thousands of years ago. I mean, since MOST (the majority) religious people are violent, we wouldn't have made it as far as we have, wouldn't you think?
JOHANNESBURG -- Police say a South African man who wanted to watch a World Cup match instead of a religious program was beaten to death by his family in the northeastern part of the country.
David Makoeya, a 61-year-old man from the small village of Makweya, Limpopo province, fought with his wife and two children for the remote control on Sunday because he wanted to watch Germany play Australia in the World Cup. The others, however, wanted to watch a gospel show.
"He said, 'No, I want to watch soccer,'" police spokesman Mothemane Malefo said Thursday. "That is when the argument came about.
"In that argument, they started assaulting him."
Malefo said Makoeya got up to change the channel by hand after being refused the remote control and was attacked by his 68-year-old wife Francina and two children, 36-year-old son Collin and 23-year-old daughter Lebogang.
Malefo said he was not sure what the family used to kill Makoeya.
"It appears they banged his head against the wall," Malefo said. "They phoned the police only after he was badly injured, but by the time the police arrived the man was already dead."
All three were arrested Sunday night, but Lebogang was released on $200 bail Tuesday, Malefo said. The other two are still being held in custody.
Malefo said the mother and son will reappear in the local Seshego Magistrates Court on July 27.
"He was always a happy man, never violent," Makoeya's nieces, Miriam and Anna, told the Daily Sun newspaper. "On Saturday, we saw him the last time at a funeral."
The World Cup, being played in Africa for the first time, started Friday and runs through July 11.
