Religion has caused more

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

i always saw and will see all acts of proseletysation as acts of intolerance for another's beliefs. i like red shirts, so i am going to make sure the next guy also takes to red shirts, chucking his blue ones for good.

You can't make anyone do anything they don't choose to do. It's called free will. If you can "make the guy take to red shirts", I'm going to have to assume he chose to do so of his own accord.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I'm going to have to assume he chose to do so of his own accord.

nope.

they were and still are taken advantage of. back in the days of charlemagne and his genocidal evangelism, the choice offered to the saxons was to convert or die. they converted "on their own accord". same story during witch burning, inquisition and latin american (and also most new world countries) mass conversions of the natives by the sword. same in phillipines.

today the situation is somewhat different. they dont convert by the stick, they convert by the carrot. they zero in on the underpriviledged people in the society and offer them medicine, schooling, clothes etc in exchange of conversion. they zero in on people who are numerically disadvantaged - for ex - the last few natives remaining in australia, usa, canada etc. their kids are made to grow up with white christian parents (in australia), offered jobs and a ticket to a decent life in exchange of conversion etc. during the tsunami dozens of missionaries were kicked out cos they offered aid in exchange of conversion. thats just inhuman. to zero in on people who have lost everything else in their lives and offer to help them if they forego the last thing they have left - their cultural-religious identity. how would you like it if you were hanging from a ledge (or living in a cardboard house on the street) and someone offered to help you, on condition you turn shinto.


missionaries have done irreparable damage to the social and religious and cultural heritage of the earth. they are social criminals identically, witches like mother teresa included. back in colonial days, they were pretty much the "brains" behind most genocides. today they have switched to social genocide instead.


i have no time or compassion to such narrow minded people like missionaries, surely the greatest bunch of liars ever walked the earth and one of the causes of history's greatest carnage - the killing out of the natives of the "new world" (done in the name of variously "manifest destiny", "white man's burden", "harvesting the soul" and other canards).


i am amazed that you of all people dont disagree with something as intolerant as proselytisation and cant see through the veil and canards of the missies.

cornnifer

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

nooo you are full of shit.

my point was not that the bible (or any scripture) said "go kill people who aren't your faith" but people choose religion to back up what they do!

Look at the fucking crusades if you want a perfect example.

I can't even believe you'd fucking argue that people kill in the name of their god, that's not even the issue we're debating here, really. Maybe that the violence is caused by lots of other things but very often led by the "killing in the name of" mentality for reasons we've been talking about..

Seriously, chill out you quack, you can talk about the bad sides of religion without attack anyone's beliefs.

Testy? Take a prozac and address my points. I didn't say people havn't killed and claimed it to be "in God's name". I said religion doesn't cause the evils of which you speak. I suggested its fucking stupid to say it does. It is. What is so hard to understand? Until you can show me ONE core teaching of ANY religion that encourages, justifies, or in anyway condones random acts of evil and ruthless killing, I will not accept your statement that religion has CAUSED evil. I could brutally slaughter thousands of people on their way into a Toby Keith concert and claim to be killing in the name of Pearl Jam. By your standards you would have to say that Pearl Jam caused me to kill those thousands. That would, of course be a stupid fucking thing to say. Why don't you, instead of calling me a quack, address the points? Heck I welcome ANYONE to address my points. Since making them this thread has gone on for pages and noone has. It makes me laugh.

angelica

IndianSummer wrote:

nope.

they were and still are taken advantage of. back in the days of charlemagne and his genocidal evangelism, the choice offered to the saxons was to convert or die. they converted "on their own accord". same story during witch burning, inquisition and latin american (and also most new world countries) mass conversions of the natives by the sword. same in phillipines.

today the situation is somewhat different. they dont convert by the stick, they convert by the carrot. they zero in on the underpriviledged people in the society and offer them medicine, schooling, clothes etc in exchange of conversion. they zero in on people who are numerically disadvantaged - for ex - the last few natives remaining in australia, usa, canada etc. their kids are made to grow up with white christian parents (in australia), offered jobs and a ticket to a decent life in exchange of conversion etc. during the tsunami dozens of missionaries were kicked out cos they offered aid in exchange of conversion. thats just inhuman. to zero in on people who have lost everything else in their lives and offer to help them if they forego the last thing they have left - their cultural-religious identity. how would you like it if you were hanging from a ledge (or living in a cardboard house on the street) and someone offered to help you, on condition you turn shinto.


missionaries have done irreparable damage to the social and religious and cultural heritage of the earth. they are social criminals identically, witches like mother teresa included. back in colonial days, they were pretty much the "brains" behind most genocides. today they have switched to social genocide instead.


i have no time or compassion to such narrow minded people like missionaries, surely the greatest bunch of liars ever walked the earth and one of the causes of history's greatest carnage - the killing out of the natives of the "new world" (done in the name of variously "manifest destiny", "white man's burden", "harvesting the soul" and other canards).


i am amazed that you of all people dont disagree with something as intolerant as proselytisation and cant see through the veil and canards of the missies.

I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:

"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."

It sounds like you are talking about abuse of power, killing, and control. Abuse of power is different than merely converting someone. If you recall, I earlier I pointed out that I believe there is a difference between attempting to convert someone with love and sharing your view, and with abuse of power. The problem is, we can't apply a blanket view to each person who attempts to "share" their religious views with others--those who proselytise, or missionaries, for example. It is misleading in my opinion.

It is very different to try and convince people to wear red shirts, and to abuse them, and take advantage of them in your effort to get them to wear red shirts. In the end, trying to get them to wear red shirts is not criminal/morally reprehensible--the abuse may be.

mammasan

Is it religion that has caused it or mankind distortion of religion?

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

ppl can say 'it wasn't TRUE believers...' all they want, did very many stand up to them? no one implied religion had the market cornered.

well i do believe the thread starter's initial premise was that religion has caused more death than any other human concept. so yes, while that leaves room for other reasons for killing...to me, that implies 'religion corners the market'...and i simply disagree. people have been killing people over land and borders forever....probably even longer than recorded history, and sure, definitely many have killed in the name of religion too. imho i do not believe more blood has been shed over religion than any other 'cause'...in faqct i would think taking over other lands has probably caused more bloodshed, so pure outright greed would corner the market. either way, religion or not...humans always seem to find reasons to kill each other. it's a shame, but true.

btw - i really don't know why you're quoting me and then discussing 'true believers'....? i never even discussed such. i am not a religious person, but i do not lay 'blame' for the bulk of the world's ills at the feet of religion. is it devisie? sadly so...but that is the fault of humanity and not religion...b/c somehow most of the world's religions are against killing, so i never quite understood how so many chose to kill in God's name anyway.

El_Kabong

know1 wrote:

Since I'm obviously not as enlightened as you, please explain to me how the religion caused or made the black plague worse...

the christians thought cats were tools of satan and therefor evil...so they began killing all the cats...drowning them, throwing them off of roofs, burning them...w/ the cat population decimated it allowed the rat population to explode, which lead to the black plague.

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

what christianity and islam are in the realm of religion, marxism and communism are in the realm of politics. both pairs, are means of fully controlling others lives - in one case religiously and in another politically, just cos someone/some ideology, said that thats the way a person's religious/political life and beliefs should be. and both pairs have stopped at little (or nothing) to propage their religious/political beliefs and exert their control over more people.

The same can be said for Capitalism and consumerism. Do you not think that capitalism attempts to exert control over people? Turn on the t.v and watch a few advertisements. Then take a walk and look at some billboards. Then take a walk past a few shops and see if you don't feel like buying something. Do you believe that you are immune from the political forces that surround you? Think again. You do not exist in a vacuum my friend. You may well discover that you are just as indoctrinated in your own particular way as anyone who happened, or happens to, live under communism, or who lives within the sphere of a particular religion - i.e, if you had been born in Louisiana, or in Tennesee, it would have been pretty difficult for you to have avoided the influence of the church.

Byrnzie

El_Kabong wrote:

the christians thought cats were tools of satan and therefor evil...so they began killing all the cats...drowning them, throwing them off of roofs, burning them...w/ the cat population decimated it allowed the rat population to explode, which lead to the black plague.

If that's true, then I have just one thing to say....Fuck me! :eek: Where did you learn that? You've got my attention now!

twisztad

I would not blame religion, it's the people the fanatics that twist religion to serve their needs, Just like Communism. Comminism can work if it is actually followed. It is one man that ruins it for the rest.

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:

"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."

It sounds like you are talking about abuse of power, killing, and control. Abuse of power is different than merely converting someone. If you recall, I earlier I pointed out that I believe there is a difference between attempting to convert someone with love and sharing your view, and with abuse of power. The problem is, we can't apply a blanket view to each person who attempts to "share" their religious views with others--those who proselytise, or missionaries, for example. It is misleading in my opinion.

It is very different to try and convince people to wear red shirts, and to abuse them, and take advantage of them in your effort to get them to wear red shirts. In the end, trying to get them to wear red shirts is not criminal/morally reprehensible--the abuse may be.

right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them. same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

right so how do you like it that the few remaining natives in canada have today no clue of their religious beliefs, cultural traditions, perhaps even their language and have taken to a faith which has nothing whats so ever to do with them. same story applies all over the new world and parts of asia. heck it even applies to europe - all the ancient european beliefs and religions have died down and today live only vicariously through christianity (eg - christmas = asatru/germanic festival of "the feast of the invincible sun", celebrated on 25th of december, cause Mitras - Mitraism was very popular in rome - was born on the 25th of december. similarly solstice = festival for germanic dawn cum fertility godess Eostra.)

The few remaining natives?? Shit, check your facts! You are talking about hundreds of thousands of Native Americans here. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a thing of the past. And they do have a clue about their religious beliefs. You are painting with too broad a brush here matey.

Byrnzie

A priest, a Pentecostal preacher and a Rabbi would get together twice a week for coffee to talk shop.

One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear.

One thing led to another and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.

Seven days later, they're all together to discuss the experience.

Father Flannery, who has his arm in a sling, is on crutches, and has various bandages on his body and limbs, goes first. "Well," he says, "I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation."

Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, with an arm and both legs in casts, and an IV drip. In his best fire and brimstone oratory he claimed, "WELL brothers, you KNOW that we don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quick DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus."

They both looked down at Rabbi Goldberg, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IV's and monitors running in and out of him. He was in bad shape. The rabbi looks up and says, "Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start."

IndianSummer

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about proselytizing. According to dictionary.com, it means:

"To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another."

but i'll admit, that its not proselitysing, but the ways and means adopted to go about proselytising thats objectionable.

but wait, i'll change that - even proselytising is very objectionable.

firstly cos the end result it achieves - of sheer social-cultural-religious genocicde. its not possible to convert a hopi indian (assuming there are any left, thanks to the missionary planned "manifest destiny" crap) to christianity, without the number of people who still keep the flame of hopi indian religion and culture alive, by going down by one.

secondly, cos its intolerant in its very premise. that i am of religion "A"- of ofcourse all the people not of religion "A" are missing out (since mine if the real thing - how very respectful of other's religions) and need to be told and explained how religion "A" is great and their religion sucks.

thirdly, it (proselytisation) reduces religion to a commodity, with missionaries going all around the world hardselling their "product", often with marketing strategies rivalling that of cunsumer goods. (eg - buy a nike shoe, get durex condoms free - become christian get schooling free).

IndianSummer

mammasan wrote:

Is it religion that has caused it or mankind distortion of religion?

its not religion or mankind's distortion of religion.

its mankind's decision to shove their religion or even a distorted version of their religion, down other's throats and the fact that to that end (the end of proselytising/conversion) they stop at very little - crusades, inquisitions, genocides, witch burning, taking advantage of the poor, hogwash, cunning et al. the best of both the stick and the carrot approaches.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

The same can be said for Capitalism and consumerism. Do you not think that capitalism attempts to exert control over people? Turn on the t.v and watch a few advertisements. Then take a walk and look at some billboards. Then take a walk past a few shops and see if you don't feel like buying something. Do you believe that you are immune from the political forces that surround you? Think again. You do not exist in a vacuum my friend. You may well discover that you are just as indoctrinated in your own particular way as anyone who happened, or happens to, live under communism, or who lives within the sphere of a particular religion - i.e, if you had been born in Louisiana, or in Tennesee, it would have been pretty difficult for you to have avoided the influence of the church.

yes capitalism too. and feminism.

and they all stem from the same source, and are caused by the same human trait.

IndianSummer

twisztad wrote:

I would not blame religion, it's the people the fanatics that twist religion to serve their needs, Just like Communism. Comminism can work if it is actually followed. It is one man that ruins it for the rest.

notice it dont happen with other religions barring christianity and islam - the two religions that have the controlling of other's religious beliefs at the centre of their system. same with communism - no other political ideology has caused as much damage (wars, deaths) as communism - cos communism has the controlling of other people's political beliefs at the centre of their ideology.

basically whether in the realm of religion or politics (2 of the biggest forces/factors in the lives of humans), the problem is caused by dictatorial attampts - ie. the attempt of one man (eg- muhammed, marx) or one body of people (church, cpsu - communist party of soviet union) to control others and to dictate to others how they should live their religious/political lives.

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

The few remaining natives?? Shit, check your facts! You are talking about hundreds of thousands of Native Americans here. Contrary to popular belief, they are not a thing of the past. And they do have a clue about their religious beliefs. You are painting with too broad a brush here matey.

are u saddened that they still exist in their thousands??

i am saddened that they dont exist in their millions like they used to.


and as for their beliefs/culture being alive - bollocks. their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.

the examples you are citing are the exeptions that prove the law.

Byrnzie

IndianSummer wrote:

are u saddened that they still exist in their thousands??

i am saddened that they dont exist in their millions like they used to.


and as for their beliefs/culture being alive - bollocks. their languages are dead, their culture is dead, their mythology is dead (surving only in history books), their religion is dead.

the examples you are citing are the exeptions that prove the law.

Current status
There are 563 Federally recognized tribal governments in the United States. The United States recognizes the right of these tribes to self-government and supports their tribal sovereignty and self-determination. These tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money. [9]

According to 2003 United States Census Bureau estimates, a little over one third of the 2,786,652 Native Americans in the United States live in three states: California at 413,382, Arizona at 294,137 and Oklahoma at 279,559 [10].

As of 2000, the largest tribes in the U.S. by population were Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, Sioux, Chippewa, Apache, Lumbee, Blackfeet, Iroquois, and Pueblo. In 2000 eight of ten Americans with Native American ancestry were of mixed blood. It is estimated that by 2100 that figure will rise to nine of ten. [11] In addition, there are a number of tribes that are recognized by individual states, but not by the federal government. The rights and benefits associated with state recognition vary from state to state.

Then there are Tribal Nations that have been denied recognition such as the Muwekma Ohlone[4] and the Miami tribe of Indiana. Many of the smaller eastern tribes have been trying to gain official recognition of their tribal status. The recognition confers some benefits, including the right to label arts and crafts as Native American and they can apply for grants that are specifically reserved for Native Americans. But gaining recognition as a tribe is extremely difficult because of a Catch-22 in the process. To be established as a tribal group, members have to submit extensive genealogical proof of tribal descent, yet in past years many Native Americans denied their Native American heritage, because it would have deprived them of many rights, such as the right of probate.

Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, as well as slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and New World Syndrome.

As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [12], dating at least to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The goal of assimilation — plainly stated early on — was to eliminate the reservations and steer Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture. In July 2000 the Washington state GOP [13] adopted a resolution of "termination" for tribal governments. As of 2004, there are still claims of theft of Native American land for the coal and uranium it contains. [14] [15] [16]

In the state of Virginia, Native Americans face a unique problem. Virginia has no federally recognized tribes, largely due to Walter Ashby Plecker. In 1912, Plecker became the first registrar of the state's Bureau of Vital Statistics, serving until 1946. Plecker believed that the state's Native Americans had been "mongrelized" with its African American population. A law passed by the state's General Assembly recognized only two races, "white" and "colored". Plecker pressured local governments into reclassifying all Native Americans in the state as "colored", leading to the destruction of records on the state's Native American community.


This Census Bureau map depicts the locations of Native Americans in the United States as of 2000.In order to receive federal recognition and the benefits it confers, tribes must prove their continuous existence since 1900. The federal government has so far refused to bend on this bureaucratic requirement. [17] A bill currently before U.S. Congress to ease this requirement has been favorably reported out of a key Senate committee, being supported by both of Virginia's senators, George Allen and John Warner, but faces opposition in the House from Representative Virgil Goode, who has expressed concerns that federal recognition could open the door to gambling in the state. [18].

In the early 21st century, Native American communities remain an enduring fixture on the United States landscape, in the American economy, and in the lives of Native Americans. Communities have consistently formed governments that administer services like firefighting, natural resource management, and law enforcement. Most Native American communities have established court systems to adjudicate matters related to local ordinances, and most also look to various forms of moral and social authority vested in traditional affiliations within the community. To address the housing needs of Native Americans, Congress passed the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) in 1996. This legislation replaced public housing, and other 1937 Housing Act programs directed towards Indian Housing Authorities, with a block grant program directed towards Tribes.

Gambling has become a leading industry. Casinos operated by many Native American governments in the United States are creating a stream of gambling revenue that some communities are beginning to use as leverage to build diversified economies. Native American communities have waged and prevailed in legal battles to assure recognition of rights to self-determination and to use of natural resources. Some of those rights, known as treaty rights are enumerated in early treaties signed with the young United States government. Tribal sovereignty has become a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, and at least on the surface, in national legislative policies. Although many Native American tribes have casinos, they are a source of conflict. Most tribes, especially small ones such as the Winnemem Wintu of Redding, California, feel that casinos and their proceeds destroy culture from the inside out. These tribes refuse to participate in the gaming industry.

The Massachusetts legislature repealed a disused 330-year-old law that barred Native Americans from entering Boston on May 19, 2005.

In August 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) banned the use of "hostile and abusive" Native American mascots from postseason tournaments [19]. The use of Native American themed team names in U.S. professional sports is widespread and often controversial, with examples such as Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins.


http://www.nativeweb.org/

http://www.dickshovel.com/AIMIntro.html

http://www.nativethreads.com/index.php

http://www.freepeltier.org/

http://www.nativespirits.com/

IndianSummer

Byrnzie wrote:

Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, as well as slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and New World Syndrome.

As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [12], dating at least to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The goal of assimilation — plainly stated early on — was to eliminate the reservations and steer Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture. In July 2000 the Washington state GOP [13] adopted a resolution of "termination" for tribal governments. As of 2004, there are still claims of theft of Native American land for the coal and uranium it contains. [14] [15] [16]

i rest my case. sometimes i wonder if usa deserves all the 9/11's it gets.