The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Indoctrination and fear > Comments

Indoctrination and fear : Comments

By Carl Mather, published 16/7/2008

History clearly shows that any society that relies on religion for moral guidance hastily plummets into barbarism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Carl,

In my experience, OLO authors who also participate in discussions about their articles are very much in the minority, so first, thanks for your willingness to test the rigour in your article by debating it here.

My objection was: “The fact that some religious-based states are sinking into chaos is no logical basis for the view that religion leads to barbarism.”

The Machiavellian view is that religion has always been a tool of statecraft: “According to Machiavelli, religion can be used to generate loyal bounds between the ruler and his subjects, and must be used if the situation requires it.” http://snipr.com/2zycl It’s much easier to deal with a political enemy by calling him an apostate or heretic (inquisition) and it’s easier to control a disgruntled populace by whipping up religious prejudice (pogrom).

The use of religion as a cover for barbaric practices doesn’t mean that religion necessarily leads to barbarism. In most northern European countries, there is no separation of church and state. Monarchs have religious roles, the state collects and distributes church taxes, and often (e.g. in the UK) minor religious figures have significant roles in political life. Yet these same countries have the highest standards of living, the best human rights protections, and lowest participation in what one would call barbarism.

As a result, I would argue that religion, or religious morality, does not of necessity lead to barbarism. Barbarism comes about when religious people allow themselves to be used by politicians and despots.

I said above that the debate about the role of religion in public affairs is a very important one. A pre-requisite for this discussion is an understanding that religions don’t always need to be regarded as a threat. Similarly, the northern European experience shows that accepting the rights of non-believing humans to live by their own moral lights can actually bring greater security for religion, rather than threatening it.

Belief has always been a part of the human experience. Finding ways to get along with it will be much more fruitful than making provocative claims about the causes of barbarism.
Posted by jpw2040, Thursday, 17 July 2008 5:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thermoman, I think you're being a little optimistic.

>>Surely 200 years is enough to relegate the flimsy superstitions of Christianity to the dustbin where they belong.<<

200 years is actually quite a short timeframe.

Don't lose sight of the fact that Christianity is just one of a number of lingering superstitions, all based on the fear of the unknown. Religion itself seems to focus on the unknown that is "death", and is built around the view that "there has to be more to it than this".

There are lesser manifestations of superstition of course. I make a point of putting on my left sock before my right, and my left shoe before my right shoe. I have no idea what would happen if I reversed this process, but the simple fact is, I'm not about to try.

Just in case.

The fear-patterns that give rise to religious belief are far stronger than my sock-and-shoe weirdness, and - without the "snap out of it" solution that might cure these irrational leanings - are therefore likely to take longer to be rid of. Don't forget that we are talking here about emotion, not logic.

And Carl, don't hide behind the notion that not being Shakespeare is a defence. I was not talking about the lack of limpid prose, but the heavy use of scorn and derision to put your point across. It simply is not constructive to write a sentence like this one...

"Religions encourage slavery, torture, murder, and unquestioning obedience to rulers, i.e. the church.<<

...however much you personally may believe it to be true. Because it provides the religious with a perfect opening to reply in kind "...and so do atheists, so yah boo sucks the same to you with knobs on".

Which they invariably do. And which doesn't get us anywhere.

It is people who make these decisions to enslave,torture etc. etc.,with or without the benefit of a religious or secular upbringing.

Handing your opponent a shillelagh with which to whack you over the head is never a good strategy.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 17 July 2008 7:16:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The claim that religion is responsible for the dark ages is fundamentally flawed. The progress during the Greek and Roman empire that preceded the dark ages, which your chart outlines, was during an era that was also driven largely by religious (Pagan) beliefs. Much scientific advancement occurred through the actions of people who were religious themselves, notably SIr Isaac Newton.
The atrocities that are mentioned in the article such as the crusades and the various religious wars are a constant objection against religion. However when religion has subsided there has been no decline in atrocities or wars. If religion was a major driver of war and atrocities, why was an atheist ideology such as Communism responsible for so many atrocities, from Stalin, Mao to Pol Pot. Why was nationalism largely responsible for the two world wars. I would also point out that your claim that Hitler was a 'good Christian' is breathtakingly ignorant of Adolf Hiter and his beliefs.
Posted by Anthony P, Thursday, 17 July 2008 8:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OMG Pericles don't turn human on me after all this time!

I am seriously concerned for you and I very much hope you will NOT dare to put on sock or shoe in the wrong order, this could result in disaster not only for yourself but for all of us, including JC and God and Herr Ratsinger and all the rats he sings for!!

There I go again I just have an OCD for blasphemy, something perhaps like Mozart's for copraphiliac matters.

Never mind, I think you are extraordinarily brave to raise in the public domain your approach to footwear donning and I am humbled and amazed at your candour. I know a good therapist (in fact I see her every week to try to overcome my various and significant personality flaws)

Ah I can see why people relish this space
Posted by Thermoman, Friday, 18 July 2008 6:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Anthony P

As soon as I read your post the words "Gott mit uns" sprang to mind. I seemed to remember that these words, translated as "god with us" were inscribed on the buckles of the belts of just about every poor hapless Nazi soldier.

I have read before that Hilter was quite religiously affected - a quick Google poured more fuel on this particular fire, quite apropos of what our original writer (peace be with him) was saying

I will dump the following - if you want any more just google gott mit uns

"Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Although Hitler did not practice religion in a churchly sense, he certainly believed in the Bible's God. Raised as Catholic he went to a monastery school and, interestingly, walked everyday past a stone arch which was carved the monastery's coat of arms which included a swastika. As a young boy, Hitler's most ardent goal was to become a priest.

Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in America today.) Many have questioned Hitler's stand on Christianity. Although he fought against certain Catholic priests who opposed him for political reasons, his belief in God and country never left him.

etc etc etc
Posted by Thermoman, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a touch of inconsistency here, I feel, Thermoman.

>>Surely 200 years is enough to relegate the flimsy superstitions of Christianity to the dustbin where they belong.<<

...followed a couple of posts later by:

>>"Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning... 'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator:'"

Given the amount of carnage wrought by this particular puppy, 200 years of enlightenment would seem to be nowhere near enough.

Your concern over my quirks and foibles is quite touching. Indeed, if the world comes to an end tomorrow, you will know that I dared to challenge the fates with my right sock.

Sorry to hear about your coprophilia, though, that must suck.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 21 July 2008 4:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy