Religionism is Bad for The Moral Fabric of Society. Is it time to bring back the lions?

[TheBigotBasher]

Why is belief in a "creator" taken as ok without question? That said, it's up to the people whether they choose to indulge or at least it should be. The religionist recruits children from birth, indoctrinating them at school and often performing body modification on the child.

Religionists perform ritualistic practices that can count as child cruelty on recently born children, when they enter their junior years and then again around the age of puberty.

Religionists demand laws are changed not just to favour them, but to make life worse or limit choices for everyone else, this is even in the area of medicine.

Religionists have caused more wars over the Centuries than any other group of peoples.

So while I accept Religionism is a lifestyle choice, it has caused the break down of society, thus;
*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology.
*Teachers should not promote religionism although the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice.
*The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21.
*Counselling services should be available for religionists so that they know that there are alternative life style choices.

[redqueen]

1. "even in the area of medicine."

What does this refer to? Euthanasia?

[sutz12]

2. Perhaps, but I'd assume he refers to abortion

and to women's health issues in general. And if you leave out abortion, women's health care is woefully incomplete.

[redqueen]

3. Gah!

*smacks head* Thanks. Too obvious, that's why I missed it. :blush:

Although after I posted, I wondered if the opiophobia that seems to negatively influence pain management services is influenced by religious mores.

[dmallind]

7. Well there's always treating kids with prayer and letting them die too. NT

[juno jones]

110. I think so.

Less religious places like Canada allow mild opiates as OTC treatment.

Religionists (to borrow the op's phrase) don't like that people might find the effects of drugs enjoyable. The pain purity police are more than happy to under medicate terminal cancer patients to save them from the horrors of addiction. And if you have no insurance and go in for chronic pain, forget it, you are just a parasitic leech doctor shopping addict, never mind that the rich can buy anything they need...or don't.


I was standing in the pharmacy line today behind an older Russian man and a lady I suppose was his mom. Her pain meds were held up for some reason. I overheard him exclaim, "What a country! I could buy cocaine in this country easier than we can get medicine for her pain."

[redqueen]

124. Yes, he could get cocaine much easier (and cheaper).

And that's exactly the line of reasoning I've heard so often... that "God forbid" (heh) people get any kind of possible pleasant side-effect.

[RufusTFirefly]

138. And don't forget those wonderfully pious pharmacists who won't dispense the Pill n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

8. Or the extreme religionists,

who would rather their child die than allow a blood transfusion.

[redqueen]

9. Does that involve anyone demanding laws be changed...

in order to accommodate them?

[TheBigotBasher]

22. In a few States, yes.

In many Countries medical decisions have been fought through the legal system by those who think prayer works better than a blood transfusion.

[redqueen]

30. My first thought was that it was shocking...

but then, I suppose it's really not... which is kind of the whole point.

[kestrel91316]

95. Religious nuts denying women contraception etc.

[Buzz Clik]

4. "Religionists". What is that supposed to be?

I recognize it's the new code word among the DU atheists, but was it really necessary to invent a new word to represent your bigotry?

[dmallind]

6. Neither new nor bigoted - just easier than listing pasionate followers of all religions

Easier than typing it too.

Goes back at least as far as Hawthorne

[Buzz Clik]

23. Yeah, it's critical to find a shorthand way of proclaiming hate for the religious.

[dmallind]

29. ... Not found around here, and descriptive not proscriptive.

Found hundreds of years ago, and used in much the same way as Islamist is (or should be) in a more specific sense. The whole point is to specify a subgroup of the religious who are hellbent on forcing it on the rest of us. Do you deny these people exist? What would you call them?

[spoony]

35. You've given us two definitions now, which is it?

Or are all people who are passionate in their spirituality equal to RW fundies to you?

[dmallind]

41. Where are my two definitions?

It means what it says - excessive zeal in the name of religion.

[spoony]

44. Zeal is not the same as what you are describing

Which is political. So which is it? You don't seem to have thought this out very well.

[dmallind]

48. You are straining at gnats

Those with excessive zeal for religion are NOT likely to be the ones who want to force it on us in your world? Who would then? Is there any Dominionist or theocrat you can think of who is not possessed of excessive zeal for their religion?

[spoony]

50. I think you need to re-examine the notion of the Venn Diagram.

All of x may be y, not all of y need be x. Your definitions suffer from sloppy articulation.

[dmallind]

60. ad hominem again - but I did not make that claim.

Your sophomoric attempts to claim intellectual superiority do not change the facts that religionists are likely to impose religion, and that I do not wish this to happen so propose educating people to the extent that religionism is reduced. Which part of that is disagreeable or offensive?

[spoony]

65. Now you're backing away from what you've said.

I don't blame you, as it was piss poor. And anti-theists are the ones claiming intellectual superiority in this thread (and about a hundred like it that appear once a week or so). I'm just telling you that you haven't got your thoughts straight.

[dmallind]

66. QUOTE ME! Tell me where I am wrong. You cannot quote an actual claim that you say I am making.

[spoony]

68. I've been telling you. Are you not reading?

You claimed "religionism" means the passionate followers of various religions, then in another post you claim it is a term dealing with the political pressurings of people with religious agendas. That's what this sad little subthread is about; the fact that you don't seem to even know whom you're talking about much less WHAT you're talking about.

[dmallind]

75. Which of those are contradictory?

Again ad hominem attacks rather than facts. Again - which of those descriptions is NOT that of a religionist? If I call Shaq tall in one post, heavy in another, rich in yet another, where have I gone wrong exactly? Where have I not known what I was talking about?

[spoony]

82. NOT contradictory but also NOT necessarily the same

And you aren't talking about one individual, you were attempting to categorise a rather huge group.

[dmallind]

89. So your real complaint is I was not repetitive?

Religionists ARE a huge group, and I have categorized them in not one single inaccurate way. Consider how many people support blocking stem cell research on those grounds alone - irrational though they are and doomed though those blobs of cells are. IS that good? Would critical thinking not lead, properly applied, to a different opinion? If you prefer a collective analogy I could have said that Americans on aggregate are taller, heavier and richer than Laotians. Groups CAN have characteristics that are true even though they do not apply individually to every member of the group.

[spoony]

92. No, I assure you, you've been plenty repetitive. No worry there. nt

[rrneck]

161. All of x may be y, not all of y need be x.

Indeed, and I'm sure you're a wonderful person. But if you want to claim kinship with 'em, take responsibility for 'em.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Take a good look at the hateful nature of the OP, and tell me you support it.

Let's just start there.

[dmallind]

43. Wasn't my first word of response "nope"? Isn't that usually indicative of disagreement? NT

[Buzz Clik]

53. Your disagreement with the OP was not the tone but the execuction:

"No martyrs, no coercion, no proscription..."

I'm sorry, but brainwashing isn't the answer to philosophical disagreements.

[dmallind]

64. Rather ironic considering how religionism is spread

but again you make up strawmen. Tell me where I said brainwashing. I said education. Is critical thinking a bad thing? Isn't it by definition armor againt brainwashing rather than brainwashing? Would you NOT want a generation of children taught how to evaluate claims and the arguments made to support them? Would you prefer martyrs or coercion? If the answers are those of any rational being, what then do you disagree with that I actually SAID?

[Buzz Clik]

70. Only the uneducated and those incapable of logic are religious?

You floor me. You continue to display all the classic symptoms of extreme intolerance, but (typical of bigots) claim that you are only stating truisms.

[dmallind]

78. Again with the projection?

Do you believe that a sound critical thinking approach would lead you to the conclusions that would make you excessively zealous in matters of religion? You can be religious without being a religionist.

[Buzz Clik]

86. Again, you are straying from the arguments in the OP.

I do not support forcing religion on anyone.

A religious zealot does not necessarily force his view on others.

You want protection from those who want to invoke religion in our government? I'm all for it. But, if you want to start pounding on people simply for their religious beliefs -- no way.

[defendandprotect]

69. The OP is simply honest criticism of organized patriarchal religion . . .

and its practices -- while also trying to impose those teachings on non-members --

Circumcision -
Imposing religious dogma on children of very young ages -- brainwashing
Opposition to ERA, abortion, stem cell research, death with dignity
Papal Bulls supporting enslavement of native American, or death/genocide -
and enslavement of Africans in America, or death.
Teaching hatred and intolerance for women, homosexuals --

"Contrary to schoolboy romances, Hollywood fantasies and the nostaligia
of royalty, the Crusades were a set of world historic crimes."

James Carrol/Crusade Chronicles



And IF you support Separation of Church & State, why would you support any of this?

*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology.
*Teachers should not promote religionism although the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice.
*The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21.
*Counselling services should be available for religionists so that they know that there are alternative life style choices.

[Buzz Clik]

72. And the members of the KKK think that they have the truth on their side.

I have no trouble with those who refuse to embrace religion. The OP is beyond that - it is an expression of hate and nothing less.

[defendandprotect]

128. There is no expression of hatred for religion in the thread . . . but why wouldn't

there be disdain for organized patriarchal religion and it's .... "male superiority" . . . ???

Try to deal with the issues addressed --

Should 4 and 5 year old be subjected to indoctrination by organized patriarchal religion?

Should Bush have confiscated taxpayer dollars to pass them on to "faith-based" religious

organizations?

Were the Crusades crimes and disruptive of civilization - a moral step backwards for humanity?

[defendandprotect]

131. And, notably, the KKK pushed the Christian Cross and Christian Bible -- !!!

Let's keep the right-wing interests in their rightful places--!!!

Remember those large KKK cross burnings?

Remember their reciting from the Christian Bible . . . ??

[spoony]

74. Yeah using rhetoric about murder.

That's sooooooo funny isn't it? Like when people start threads about black people that joke about dragging them behind trucks? Oh wait, no one would even THINK that was acceptable would they?

As to your weak defense of the insipid OP:

"*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology."

Religion is a vital part of history, anthropology, philosophy, social studies, psychology, literature, etc. The OP is talking about marginalising religion so as to study it as if it were an oddity, which is why they made the idiotic comment:

"the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice."

Really? Look, class. It's Billy. His family is religious! I know that in the OP's world this would elicit gasps from the classroom.

"The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21."

I think it was you I asked about this, below. First how does this have to do with Church/State? Second what are you going to do? Intrude into families lives?

"Counselling services should be available for religionists so that they know that there are alternative life style choices."

Again, just mocking bullshit that has nothing to do with Church/State.

[TheBigotBasher]

97. Lol @ God.

It was sunny when I started this, there is now a giant thunderstorm overhead. (Serious).

That's sooooooo funny isn't it? Like when people start threads about black people that joke about dragging them behind trucks? Oh wait, no one would even THINK that was acceptable would they?

That was done in the name of religion. Often by the Religious leaders of the town.

As to your weak defense of the insipid OP:

"*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology."

Religion is a vital part of history, anthropology, philosophy, social studies, psychology, literature, etc. The OP is talking about marginalising religion so as to study it as if it were an oddity, which is why they made the idiotic comment:

Its role in history should be taught, (as it was the contributing factor to almost all Wars of the previous millennium). Asfor the rest of the social sciences, religion plays exactly the same role in each. How it used as a guide for moral relativism and societal control. But yeah, it should be marginalised from schools.

"the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice."

Really? Look, class. It's Billy. His family is religious! I know that in the OP's world this would elicit gasps from the classroom.

In the World I live in this is done to gays in school. In the World I wish existed - it would result in reasoned arguments. In the World you believe that I want to live in, it would produce a satiated lion.

"The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21."

I think it was you I asked about this, below. First how does this have to do with Church/State? Second what are you going to do? Intrude into families lives?

Ban ceremonies such as bar mitzvah and confirmation until the age of 21 (18 - maybe). The age of consent can be debated.

"Counselling services should be available for religionists so that they know that there are alternative life style choices."

Again, just mocking bullshit that has nothing to do with Church/State.

Hey they Church has anti gay counselling, religionists should be allowed to feel free to disbelieve as much as believe.

[spoony]

98. "Ban ceremonies such as bar mitzvah and confirmation until the age of 21 (18 - maybe)."

Well there goes the whole pretense that this is about the Constitution and Church/State. You don't just want religion removed from "decision-making," you want the government to actually crack down on religion. Astonishing. Just curious, how many brown shirts do you own?

[TheBigotBasher]

101. Religion should be an adult choice.

Despite the fact that the church offers it as a choice to a 13/14 year old at "confirmation", very few are in a position to actually say no.

So what do you think the reigious age of consent should be?

As for brown shirts, I have an off cream one, brown does not really suit me.

[spoony]

104. I disagree, brown seems to suit you very well.

There is no such thing as "religious age of consent." Nor should there be. The government has no place dictating such things. Like I said, your whole pretense for this thread just went up in a cloud of fascism.

[TheBigotBasher]

108. Why should Children be

indoctrinated about religion? If it is so valuable then people will choose it.

[Scout]

109. they have to catch 'em while they are still impressionable and vulnerable

and still believe in fairy tales.

they know that they won't choose it freely as adults, once they can think and reason.

[spoony]

116. Right, because we're all morons.

Like Obama. And MLK. Just a bunch of mindless robots.

So much tolerance here, it's so overwhelming.

[spoony]

112. The state should really take all children and raise them

that way all these parents can't have any potentially negative effect on their growth. Ah, dystopia.

[TheBigotBasher]

137. The Government bans a lot of

practice that used to be considered ok for parents to do, but is now considered child abuse.

[defendandprotect]

167. There is very definite understanding of an "age of reason" at 7 years of age . . .

and currently in most states anyone under the age of 21 can't be served alcohol.

Granted, you can join the military -- young and stupid -- and I'd like also to see

that raised to 21-25 --

But certainly, children have a right to their own free thought, personal conscience,

BEFORE it is assaulted by organized patriarchal religions.

Certainly, ENLIGHTENMENT can take hold -- and it is vastly wiser than what we have seen

of organized patriarchal religion using tax-exempt money to defeat the Equal Rights

Amendment and to push Prop 8 -- or the "pro-life" religious movement to murder doctors!!!

[defendandprotect]

135. The Crusades were "rhetoric" about murder . . . ???

The Papal Bulls on native Americans, Africans enslaved were "rhetoric."

Maybe the "Hammer of Witches" was also "rhetoric" -- !!!???

That's sooooooo funny isn't it? Like when people start threads about black people that joke about dragging them behind trucks? Oh wait, no one would even THINK that was acceptable would they?

I'd also remind you that the Christian Bible was used to defend enslavement of Africans and
Segregation!!!

Racism is firmly grounded in the Christian Bible -- as well as sexism.

As to your weak defense of the insipid OP:...

"*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology."

Religion is a vital part of history, anthropology, philosophy, social studies, psychology, literature, etc. The OP is talking about marginalising religion so as to study it as if it were an oddity...

The teaching of organized patriarchal religion has no rightful place in the public school system.
Organized patriarchal religion is a vital part of the VIOLENCE of history and distortion of
psychology, especially normal human sexuality!

Organized patriarchal religion seeks acknowledgement from government because it is a marginal
practice unless it can regain access to non-members.


"The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21."

I think it was you I asked about this, below. First how does this have to do with Church/State? Second what are you going to do? Intrude into families lives?

Let's see . . . does organized patriarchal religion want to INTRUDE into the most private decisions
a woman makes in regard to reproduction? In fact, does it even want to keep her from acting in
self-defense of her own life if the attacker is a fetus?

OTOH, I think debate, discussion and education -- basic enlightenment, consciousness raising
does wonders.

As we've noticed, it is the "pro-life" murderers who resort to intrusion and murder.

Children in our schools should be made more familiar with anti-religion theories ....

especially in their history classes.

[kestrel91316]

96. No hate intended, any more than the label "atheist" is a way to

"proclaim hate".

[madmom]

12. Obviously not a new word.....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionists

and I wouldn't necessarily call it bigotry either.

[Buzz Clik]

25. You didn't call it bigotry -- I did.

I find it really amusing that person who suggested bringing back lions for "religionists" calls itself TheBigotBasher.

Do you really want to defend this person?

[TheBigotBasher]

54. I can defend myself

First explain what is wrong with the points raised. Anyway I never said we should bring back the lions for religionists, I asked is it time to bring back the lions?

Religionism between consenting adults is perfectly fine, as long as they ensure that it does not interfere with others.

[spoony]

59. So you used a Fox News question mark to hide behind.

Big deal. It's clearly a sick thought in your sick mind or it wouldn't have bubbled to the surface. And the fundamental problem with your "points" is that they begin from the faulty premise that religion is inherently bad.

[TheBigotBasher]

83. It is hardly sick to suggest that religion is fundamentally bad.

The lions thing was a DELIBERATE Fox News type question. (Although the lions thing is a thought I always had from the days of school. When a nun was teaching us about how catholics were fed to lions, I got in trouble for asking why didn't they lie and just say they were not catholics. (I went to a catholic school)).

For the crime of being born gay, I can in many Countries still be imprisoned, or hung, all in the name of religion.

Religion is deeply entwined into the politics of almost every Country in the World. Including, supposedly by Constitution, secular USA. (Why not atheist President?)

Should it really be at the forefront of decision making?

[spoony]

85. I called that faulty, not sick

Sick is the nasty rhetoric of evoking bloodshed. Are you really trying to rebrand that flamebait OP as the simple, meek statement you made at the end of that post? That NO ONE ON THIS SITE would disagree with? Utter rubbish.

[Buzz Clik]

76. You're kidding, right?

<snip>
*The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21.
*Counselling services should be available for religionists so that they know that there are alternative life style choices.

Right. Let's set up mandatory deprogramming for the religious. Oh, hell - you're not intolerant. You just want to help these poor people who have the unfortunate misconception that any religion can be practiced freely in this country.

Anyway I never said we should bring back the lions for religionists, I asked is it time to bring back the lions?

Cute. "Hey, I didn't say that Einstein was gay, I just asked the question: 'Does all the evidence point to Einstein being gay'?"

:eyes:

[madmom]

55. Just calling it as I see it. You asked if he/she invented a new word to express his/her bigotry. It

is not a new word invented by the op, and I think some of his/her ideas have some merit.

[dmallind]

5. Nope - critical thinking classes in K-12 would do the trick much better

No martyrs, no coercion, no proscription of any kind needed.

And would work wonders for knocking down media bias, sensationalist news, and political spin too.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. I don't think so

Many religious people think their critical thinking skills are just fine; they just insulate their religious beliefs from the type of questioning they apply to other topics. Simply teaching more critical thinking in school wouldn't address this.

[dmallind]

15. But only because they were trained that way

Train them another way while young and most of them will get there in the end. Loyola had a point. There is no need to stamp out religious belief - frankly I wouldn't want to as the social anthropology aspect of it is fascinating - only to make it so it is politically impotent and cannot harm society at large any more. There are plenty of believers in Scandinavia - just not enough to force their woo-woo into laws and politics.

[knitter4democracy]

140. That's what their English classes are for.

At least, that's how I always taught and how I was taught to teach. English teachers teach critical reading, writing, thinking, and dreaming.

[undeterred]

10. "religionism"?

:rofl: Broad brush crap.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Completely -- brought to us by "TheBigotBasher"

A little irony to start the week.

[spoony]

71. He seems to have disappeared. Maybe he's bashing himself.

:shrug:

[TheBigotBasher]

99. Re - He seems to have disappeared. Maybe he's bashing himself.

Lol - Religionists don't even allow that!

[ZombieHorde]

11. Offensive.

There are struggling families in the U.S. and you want to give perfectly good meat to lions?

[rrneck]

162. I kinda miss your old avatar image. nt

[ZombieHorde]

165. It was disturbing some DUers, so I put on vacation for a while. nt

[anonymous171]

14. Replace "religionism" with "homosexuality"

And you will see just how extreme and offensive your post is.

[dmallind]

17. Yes silly because religion certainly IS a choice. NT

[Buzz Clik]

31. Ah -- so you suggest that homosexuality is acceptable only because it isn't a choice?

The logical conclusion to your comment is that if being gay were not a choice, you'd find it despicable.

Nice.

[dmallind]

40. What a weird stretch. I distinguish between chosen behavior and biology.

[Buzz Clik]

45. No -- you justify hatred toward an entire group that you simply disagree with ...

... because you see it as a choice.

The point is that intolerance is intolerance and there is no justification for it.

[dmallind]

58. I have neither mentioned nor implied hatred.

I don't hate the excessively religionist. I fear them a bit, but despite Star Wars armchair philosophy that's not hate. I certainly don't hate the merely religious. I simply wish neither set to be able to control laws or politics where I live.

[Buzz Clik]

67. I asked you if you agreed with the OP, and your disagreement was with how the ends were to be met.

You showed no alarm at the intolerant tone at all. Are you now saying that you do disagree with the intolerance being shown in the OP?

[dmallind]

84. I don't show alarm at much in a discussion forum

The means are the intolerant part. What's the point of discussion and debate about politics if the intent is not to sway those to your point of view or at least prevent those who have different views from having too much power? I make no apology for not wanting excessive religious zeal to be the dominant approach in the country - none whatsoever. I in fact strongly agree that this is not a good thing, and suggest that education in critically considering the claims made by religionists is a good way to reduce the probability that it will continue. Where exactly am I wrong? Where am I doing anything that you would not apply to excessive zeal for conservatism?

Disagreement is not bigotry. Trying to change people's minds is not bigotry. Trying to maximize those who share your point of view is not bigotry. It is what we do every day on DU, and in politics at large.

[Buzz Clik]

87. It seems that, rhetorically, we have much in common. Our disagreement ...

... is in the reaction to the OP.

[ZombieHorde]

156. "you justify hatred toward an entire group that you simply disagree with"

Totally, just like people who hate everyone in the KKK.

[spoony]

46. So you are anti-choice.

Interesting.

[dmallind]

52. anti which choice? I'm anti the choice to impose religion on society yes. NT

[spoony]

62. Most of "society" is religious.

So who are you to say what is imposing upon them, when they are participants in it? Are you one of those types that lament that there's a "church on every corner" and all that bollocks?

[dmallind]

73. Most of society is a lot of things that should not be imposed on all.

Since when does an argumentum ad populum hold water?

What is it with you and the one other chap who make up things I said or try to guess what I "really" mean instead of actually taking what I wrote at its clear face value? I do not wish religion to be imposed on law or politics. I do not wish mythology to decide who can marry whom, what medical procedures are OK, what sexual acts can be performed between consenting adults, what scientific research can take place, and so on. I do not wish the president to be chosen on the basis of how many times a candidate mentions a Canaanite war god or an Edomite sky god, or how strongly they pretend to care about genocidal folk tales from the middle east. I do not wish to be told when I can buy any number of products based on when an omnipotent being supposedly decided to get some rest, nor to be run out of town or shot in the head because I don't buy into these same stories. I wish religion was what its followers generally pretend it is - a way to spread love and tolerance and peace - or for it to get the hell out of politics. It's not going to happen of course - unless we work on the education angle.


That's what I want pure and simple. No lions. No brainwashing. No "hatred". Just the end of forcing religion where it does not belong.

[spoony]

79. I am reading you at face value.

And that apparently is my mistake because you haven't been clear. Including in this subthread where you conflate society with the political arena. Society is a far, far broader term encompassing all sorts of human interaction. That's why the idea of religion being "forced" within it is odd as it is a natural part of people's lives and therefore "society." Politics is just one arena, and no one on this site is arguing that it is acceptable for religion to run politics.

[TheBigotBasher]

100. Religion is not natural.

Do birds pray?

[spoony]

102. Don't know, I don't speak their language.

The point of course was that religion has its place in society quite apart from it being "forced" on people.

Additionally, religion may indeed be natural. I believe it's called neurotheology? Science involving the brain and religion. And even if you reject a religion's truth, that doesn't mean it isn't natural. As in, people forming groups and having a unifying mythology and set of beliefs. It's perfectly natural.

[TheBigotBasher]

148. neurotheology is another religious

pseudo science. Not quite as bad as intelligent design but getting there.

[redqueen]

151. Religion is not natural.

If it was, would people need to be threatened with 'eternal damnation' in order to get them to adhere to it?

[rrneck]

163. It's natural for humans

like flying is natural for birds. It's what we do.

[redqueen]

168. Ridiculous.

Sure some humans seem to have an innate desire to try to gain power over and control others... however even that manipulative, bullying behavior is learned. None of this crap is 100% natural.

[rrneck]

173. Awww. Not as ridiculous as

you might think. We are tool using mammals. We use religion as a tool for good or ill just like everything else we touch.

Religion is little more than the shared experience of the divine. Or spirituality. Or the Heebie Jeebies. Whatever. It has been since before Lascaux.

We have learned to use memory, prognostication, a theory of mind and the concept of reciprocity to establish a sense of morality. The members of the group watch each other, remembering what others have done and anticipating what they might do to establish rules of right behavior. The ideas of heaven and hell are the ultimate prognostication. God can see what you do even when nobody else can. And so can Santa Claus.

It seems rude to hand your statement back to you this way, but learning is 100% natural. That's why the children of abusive parents are more likely to grow up to be abusers themselves. And of course, Martin Luther King's folks must have done something right.

It seems to me that we need to figure out how to avoid using religion incorrectly. The First Amendment was a good start.

[redqueen]

174. It's a tool that's obsolete. It's outlived its usefulness.

Traditions like giving tax-exempt status to religious organizations, granting unwarranted deferential treatment to ceratin people who use religious nonsense to defend their actions, etc.... these things will stop eventually. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Obviously some are more reluctant to let go of these traditions than others. Nevertheless, humanity is moving forward. It's only a matter of time before this stuff is all just another archaic part of history.

[rrneck]

175. You're right about the obsolescence.

The Abrahamic religions had a pretty good run, two thousand years or so. But where I live there are enough prayer flags around to make the place look like a used car lot. Crystals and channeled spirits, good energy and bad energy, What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? and more besides. There's more in the pipe.

As soon as we run out of oil or water or even a decent four dollar cup of coffee people will cry to the heavens and amid great wailing and gnashing of teeth and implore to the great spirit, whether it is in the sky or in the paradox of quantum mechanics, to find direction and inspiration.

Religion, myth, and literature all come from the same place. The trick is to figure out how to keep from burning people alive because they disagree with some literary critic's interpretation of a mythical sacred novel.

Rest assured if there's money or power in it, the scalawags will surely follow.

[Buzz Clik]

77. I completely agree that religion should not be forced on anyone, but that is not the theme of the OP

[TheBigotBasher]

114. Do you?

I thought you did not mind children being religiously indoctrinated?

[TheBigotBasher]

18. That is exactly where I got it from.

A few extra added arguments that pertain to "religionism" more than homosexuality. Such as religionists have been the cause of most of the Wars over the Centuries.

Have a read of the comments here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gays-prepare-to-join-the-rainbow-nation-1722946.html

[redqueen]

20. Hah.

When I saw this topic, that is the first thing I thought of ... there's a thread in LBN about it already.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Have any wars been fought over land? Wealth? Freedom?

[spoony]

39. It is ALWAYS possible for any bigot to blame anything on their

selected target group. It goes like this: Wealth? Well who had the wealth? The Church, that's who! In other threads you can plug "Jews" in there. By their very nature the bigot sees all events through their warped lens.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Exactly.

It's damned funny and been expressed on this thread already: if this kind of intolerance were being expressed toward gays, African-Americans, or Jews, then the poster would be instantly banned.

[TheBigotBasher]

107. This intolerance is used against gays

and religion is used to justify that intolerance.

France, which is much more Catholic as a Nation is far stricter about its enforcement of banning religious interference in Government.

[spoony]

Don't act like that's your concern

You already detailed your desire for government to control religion and ban various things you don't like. Don't play that bullshit lie about interference in government.

[TheBigotBasher]

136. You are the one bullshitting.

Assuming thoughts that I do not have. However religion does interfere in Government and if it wants to interfere, then yes Government should interfere with it. Religion is at its worst mind manipulation, at its best a form of comfort for the poor.

[redqueen]

152. "Religion is at its worst mind manipulation, at its best a form of comfort for the poor."

Interesting.

I'm not sure the second sentence is exactly how I'd say it... but I do like the first sentence... hmmm.

[rrneck]

164. Plenty.

Land belonging to the church.

Wealth belonging to the church.

The Freedom to practice a form of faith other than that which is sanctioned by the prevailing church.

And of course, plenty more that little or nothing to do with religion.

[polmaven]

19. Thank you!

The bigotry against people of faith at this site has become more and more rampant. You are right. Replace "religionism" with almost any other "group" (I hate that word, but it seems to fit here), except, maybe, "feminists", and it would be considered offensive.

[cliffordu]

21. Bullshit. Religionism is a choice.

The move to subvert this country away from secular humanism towards the hateful fascism the televangelist movement pushes is what the insult of 'religionist' describes.

Domonionist scum are trying to turn this country into Talabania.

Don't you DARE compare the struggle of the GLBT community with the very people who were behind Prop 8 in california.

[Buzz Clik]

34. And there it is -- the definitive cultural bias unclothed:

The move to subvert this country away from secular humanism towards the hateful fascism the televangelist movement pushes is what the insult of 'religionist' describes.

So, either you are ONLY pushing back against televangelism or you are painting all religious people with the same broad stroke. Which is it? Are some religious people not on your shit list, or are you that kind of bigot?

[cliffordu]

61. My use of the word Televangelist and Dominionist are specific.

If your 'religion' advocates treating women like brood mares and enfocing religious law on the population, if your 'beliefs' include the idea that homosexuality is a sin or abomination or curable through prayer, if your preacher ever says that Democrats are socialists, then you go under the sherman tank with the Taliban.

I have friends and family that live deeply within the tenets of their faith without having to inflict their world view on everyone at the point of a bayonet. I have my own, loopy as they may be.

Faith and religionism, (in this country, Dominionism), have less and less to do with each other all the time.

[spoony]

27. Well, then it might get locked.

It would stand a better chance anyway. This is one of the "accepted" bigotries.

[rockymountaindem]

16. Is this how you earn your street cred?

I know there are lots of religious people who pile the hate on atheists, but those types don't post here. The religious people on this site, by and large, are on the same side of the issues as you are. Why do you feel the need to demonstrate your self-superiority to us?

If you've got real guts, go hold a sign with the text of your post in the parking lot of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Thumbing your nose at us here is kind of pointless.

[madrchsod]

36. thank you for your comment

[TheBigotBasher]

38. I originally posted it in response to an online article

about India potentially changing the law on homosexuality. It has been quite amusing watching the relatively mild sections of the religious right, meet the largely secular British establishment types who read the "Indy".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gays-prepare-to-join-the-rainbow-nation-1722946.html

But the more I thought about - the more it stood out alone.

Non medicinal circumcision is child abuse.
The various stages of "confirmation" into religion are also child abuse. Try being a 14 year old kid who when asked by the Priest etc do they wish to continue the religion - says No.
It is a lifestyle choice that has resulted in war and limits on scientific advance.

Religious rights do not have to be fought for, in fact it is because of religion, everyone else has had to fight for their rights to be returned.

[spoony]

42. So it's a "choice" to be bashed but it isn't a "choice" because

we're all brainwashed. Seems you have a slight inconsistency problem. And circumcision? Really? Is that what's got your piss up?

[TheBigotBasher]

160. I guess you are fully confident that

infant / junior sexual mutilation of boys is perfectly safe.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Is-Circumcision-an-Abuse-to-the-Boys-039-Rights-73342.shtml

Thankfully, most Nations have banned the female equivalent.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

24. I think it boils down to the difference between unity and uniformity.

Most religions teach (or imply) that all must believe as they do. Few teach that difference of beliefs can be an asset rather than a liability. The question, to me, is whether people can be truly religious without the dogma...OR is it maybe the only way to be "truly religious"?

[tigereye]

28. This type of argument is tedious and offensive

Is it necessary to apply hyper-rationalism to everything? You aren't going to stop people from having religious beliefs, and you end by offending many tolerant people with this kind of language.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. "the child of a religionist may be presented to the class..."

Ridicule them, is that what I'm reading in your post? In front of the class?

[knitter4democracy]

142. That was done to me in high school several times.

I was an evangelical Christian in a school with few evangelicals. When I complained about a teacher showing a movie and not allowing any of us to leave (I'm sure she didn't get permission ahead of time to show a Playboy movie, I'm just sayin'), she turned the entire class on me the next day, making me debate everyone on why she shouldn't have shown the movie. Thank goodness my best friend eventually stood up for me and helped me out, but if I hadn't been as tough a kid as I was, it would've destroyed me in a lot of ways, not made me think more about my beliefs.

Then there was the history teacher who attacked me repeatedly in class for my beliefs. Yeah, that was fun.

See, if you attack someone for his beliefs, he'll just believe them more strongly. Agree with him, and he starts to wonder and allow himself to think about it.

[The Night Owl]

47. The truth is that most who call themselves believers are full of doubt.

These days, the average believer is closer to an agnostic than a religious fundamentalist. Let's not lose those people with overheated rhetoric such as that found in the title of this thread.

[defendandprotect]

51. Strongly agree with you that we should protect the child's right to personal conscience . . .

against religious intrusions upon their minds --

it's a form of brainwashing.

And, it's disgraceful that Obama is not only continuing with taxpayer funding for

"faith-based" religius organizations, but perhaps enlarging those taxpayer contributions?

Rather than making clear that religion is a personal choice -- not something authenticated

by government -- this financial support of religion by government suggests that rather than

be a personal choice, religion is supported by government!!

Those contributions should end !!!

[spoony]

56. And your plan for that is...?

Children pick things up from their parents, for good and ill. How exactly do you plan on suppressing one element of a family's life? Ban children from churches?

[defendandprotect]

139. Education . . . kids should be taught about free conscience . . .

the right to personal conscience . . . and perhaps they wouldn't subject their

offspring to religious indoctrination the next time around?

Can we break the cycle of religious enslavement -- ?

[SidDithers]

57. I don't think lions are needed...

but I wouldn't mind seeing religions go the way of the dodo.

Sid

[Rex]

63. No, the lion idea is a bad one too.

Think of the ratings!

[heppcatt]

80. Religion in school

I took OT and NT history in HS.
And i am no where near a christian.
They were very informative history classes.
I think most of the kids and the teacher were christian, but the teacher absolutely disallowed the class to become "religious".

[Political Heretic]

81. Extremeism and intolerance in ALL its forms is pretty ugly.

It's amazing how many similarities there are between extremist religious and extremist anti-religious.

People act as though belief itself is the root of all evils, and in doing so they miss the truth - a really important truth that we need to understand in order to make progress.

Much evil has been done in the name of religion. Much evil has been done in other names too - in the name of "freedom," in the name of "capitalism," in the name of "nationalism" and so on.

Michele Foucault gave me what I consider to be one of the most insightful statements of all time. He said,

"The strategic adversary is fascism - the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."

The root adversary is human selfishness and thirst for coercive power. From that root religion and religious institutions can be a very seductive vehicle for pursuing power. But so can politics, nationalism, economic theory, corporate industry, and so on.

People holding personal beliefs about the nature of the universe isn't the problem. Absence of empathy, and a self-centered obsession with coercive power over others is the problem.

[defendandprotect]

143. That's like suggesting that standing up against oppression and TORTURE is "extremism" . ..!!!

You do remember the Crusades, I presume . . .

"a moral set back for civilizaiton" . . . ??

"which set new precedents for cruel and brutal behavior - tortures" . . . ???

Belief in the SUPERIORITY OF MALES -- as taught by organized patriarchal religion --
is the root of patriarchal evil which has oppressed the majority gender on this planet . . .
females!

"The strategic adversary is fascism - the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."

And how do you separate that concept of fascism from an all male church which still teaches
the "inferiority" of females - and whose teachings have embedded the oppression of women all
over the globe?

How do you separate that concept from the violence used to spread this patriarchal religion
all over the world . . . "introducing the cross with the sword" . . . ??

How do you separate fascism from Papal Bulls which encouraged violence and enslavement against
the native American and finally their murder/genocide?

Or the fascism of the Papal Bulls which encouraged enslavement or murder of Africans here in
America?

The root adversary is human selfishness and thirst for coercive power. From that root religion and religious institutions can be a very seductive vehicle for pursuing power. But so can politics, nationalism, economic theory, corporate industry, and so on.

And males seeking authority and acknowledgment of their "superiority" thru the invention of an
all-male god had no basis in "human selfishness or thirst for coercive power" . . . ??????

ORGANIZED PATRIARCHAL RELIGION IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM .... "POLITICS, NATIONALISM, ECONOMIC
THEORY, CORPORATE INDUSTRY, ETAL" BECAUSE IT CREATES A 'GOD' WHO PROCLAIMS THE MALE AS SUPERIOR!!!

That's why our Constitution separates state & Church . . . and not state and "politics, nationalism,
economic theory, corporate industry" -- or Smuckers bars.

As the founders well recognized, it is organized patriarchal religion and it's "god" which is the
danger.

Again -- organized patriarchal religion is fascism . . . and a danger to freedom, free thought
and the right to personal conscience.

[Cleita]

88. You can't stop people from having religion if they want it. They tried

it in the Soviet Union under Stalin and it just went underground. What you want is for our government to start strictly enforcing the separation of church and state as laid out in the Constitution instead of allowing it to encroach and influence our government. Our public schools should not be teaching anything about religions except what their role was as part of history or in anthropology studies of various groups and what they believe.

[redqueen]

91. I was waiting for someone to mention this.

Because it is a good point... but it doesn't seem to address what the OP so antagonistically said. Was it a call to ban religion?

[Cleita]

121. If it is the OP isn't looking back at history and is willing to repeat the same

mistake that has been made since Roman times when governments try to ban religions.

[redqueen]

126. That's what I was wondering.

the OP isn't advocating that we ban religion, is it?

[spoony]

93. I don't think anyone here disagrees with what you wrote.

Unfortunately, the OP didn't stop there, nor put it that simply nor that diplomatically.

[TheBigotBasher]

111. I do not support a ban on religion.

I do support it being excluded from politics entirely. Why do we need to know if the US President is Christian if there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State? Why would it be a more of a shock to have a President that is an atheist than anything else?

[redqueen]

127. Yes, we could do with a lot less of it from politicians.

Not only would we not have to be subjected to nonsense about which church whatever politican goes to, we wouldn't have to hear the kind of dumbassery that Sanford is puking out lately.

Which, I might add, the M$M is only too happy to advocate, accentuate, and embellish. It's beyond disgusting, really.

[LanternWaste]

90. I imagine most people...

I imagine most people believe the philosophies, religions, and politics they adhere to are more correct than those of everyone else, and feel that proscribing, proselytizing, and advertising those beliefs are merely common sense; whilst those of other beliefs who do the same are "forcing their viewpoints down our throats", and destroy the very fabric of our cultures... Much like your own OP, writ large.


I have few doubts you consider your own viewpoints and opinions on this to be correct at the expense of all others. And when a lot of people feel that same way, the wide-spread violence you alluded to is usually a consequence.

[spoony]

94. Why is evoking violent imagery against religious people not flamebait?

A thread was poofed a week or so ago for joking about witches being burned. Nor do I suppose threads using lynching rhetoric would be welcome.

[spoony]

120. Apparently mods don't care, as they just shuffled the thread to this pit.

Nice not giving a shit about your own rules.

[rug]

103. You should have hired Billy Mays sooner if you want to drive traffic to your blog.

[NeedleCast]

105. what the heck is a religionist?

[spoony]

106. It depends, the OP

clearly thinks it applies mainly/only to Christians, hence the lion rubbish. Then one poster says it means a passionate follower of a religion. Then they said it actually meant a religious person who attempts to rule politics and law with their religion. The definition seems to vary with each person's agenda.

[NeedleCast]

113. "The definition seems to vary with each person's agenda"

Hehe, sounds just like religion...

[anigbrowl]

115. 'religionism' is an ignorant term. 'Theism' would have done equally well and sounded more literate.

[TheBigotBasher]

149. Religionism was chosen because of the implied ignorance

My rights to travel the World as a gay man are strictly limited by religion. Religion has been used to enslave, to justify wars, to steal property, to create and destroy Government and Nations.

It has not been a force for good. Even today it is a force for bad. Such as the examples in the comments here:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gays-prepare-to-join-the-rainbow-nation-1722946.html

[undeterred]

117. I can't believe this offensive bullshit hasn't been locked yet.

Counseling services are available for your bigotry problem.

[spoony]

119. Well it's R/T's problem now

Too bad they allow such hate on this site, and just shuffle it to a subforum instead of actually enforcing their rules.

[TheBigotBasher]

123. Where is the hate?

Saying that religion should be an adult choice and should play no part in policy making?

[Autonomy]

118. The terms *religionism*

and "lifestyle choice"? I sense you are reading from the republican playbook. I disapprove. :(

[TheBigotBasher]

122. Go back to one of my earlier points I made in this thread.

It is PRECISELY because I was reading from the Rethug playbook. These arguments are still being used against gays today by those justifying varying levels of attacks on gays (and women) based on religion. Even now in India where they are finally debating legalising homosexuality.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gays-prepare-to-join-the-rainbow-nation-1722946.html

To me, religion is anachronistic, archaic and has no place in society. It most certainly is a life style choice. You are not (despite what a Rabbi or Iman may tell you) born religious.

Do I want it banned? No. Do I want it dictating policy given the last Century of scientific progress, Absolutely not.

[damntexdem]

125. And fundamentalist atheist religionism is just as bad as any fundie Christian religionism.

Separation of church and state should mean that you and the fundie Xians should have to go outside the statehouse and the courthouse to fight it out. Instead, you both want to impose your ideologies on the rest of us, including we agnostics, through public laws -- I would say 'civil laws,' but they're anything but civil.

[TheBigotBasher]

130. Fundamentalist Athiests?

A key difference between atheists and religionists.

[Lerkfish]

132. not really, you appear to want to legislate nonreligion as the only choice until 21

that would be extremist, and fundamentalist.

[TheBigotBasher]

159. I note that in many areas there are minimum ages.

Minimum ages for sex, alcohol, voting. The same should apply to religion.

[Lerkfish]

170. what about ethics, or morals?

do have a minimum age for that training as well?

[Lerkfish]

129. so, in other words, you wish to ban religion until the age of 21

good thing you aren't one of those people who demand that everyone thinks like you do, or anything.

LOL>

[TheBigotBasher]

134. I said that tehre should be an appropriate age.

21 was a suggestion. 18 is also reasonable, given that you can vote at 18. At what age is it indoctrination/child abuse v the choice of a consenting young person?

[Lerkfish]

169. someone with lots of baggage, I see. you consider religion child abuse -- says more about you

than it does about religion.

so, by the same token, we should also not educate kids in the public school system before 18 as well.

[ipaint]

133. Sweden has the right idea

Sweden does an exceptional job of educating their children and the stats back that up.


Mandatory sex education classes for 14-year-olds anger Muslim immigrants in Sweden.

STOCKHOLM — Proper condom use, sex positions and same-sex relationships are all part of the curriculum for 14-year-old students in Swedish high schools.
But many Muslim immigrants, who require their daughters and wives to wear head scarves to ensure modesty, have prevented their children from attending the classes.
A new law proposes to change that by abolishing a provision that was initially created for Catholic and Jewish students looking to get out of religious education classes. All students were allowed to opt out of subjects if they wanted.
Without that provision, Muslim parents would no longer be able to stop their teenage children from participating in the mandatory sex education, or in sports lessons.
"All students have the right to take part in the compulsory school education, regardless of whether their parents approve or disapprove," said Sweden's education secretary, Jan Bjorklund.

...“The purpose of the sex education is to provide good information about how the body works, to make the students feel secure in their sexuality and to prevent sexual diseases and unwanted pregnancies," said Ann-Cristine Jonsson of the Swedish National Institute of Public Health.
Students learn about HIV/AIDS, chlamydia, herpes and hepatitis, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. Condoms with different flavors, such as strawberry and orange, are handed out to the students. “We want to prevent both diseases and unwanted pregnancies,” Jonsson said.
The students are also taught that it is normal to have intercourse with people of the same sex and that it is unacceptable to tease or bully classmates who are gay.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/090625/strawberry-condoms-14-year-olds-shock-muslims?page=0,1

Our stats are appalling when compared to other countries including sweden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/051606/teensex.html

Sex education in the US is manipulated and fought against by the religious from the local level to the national level and our pregnancy and STD stats show the result of that. To me that is child abuse.
It's encouraging that sweden is standing up to an attempt at religious manipulation of laws in their country by taking the exemption away from all religions.

We don't have a government that will stand up to religion, in fact representatives from the bottom to the top fall all over themselves and each other to prove how full of faith they are.
Religion is a valuable tool of control for governments and their corporate partners.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

141. I like To randomly Capitalize My letters Too. nt

[TheBigotBasher]

146. LOl

The title, "Religionism is Bad for The Moral Fabric of Society. Is it time to bring back the lions?" is not randomly capitalised. It is a correct form of headline writing.

[knitter4democracy]

144. Psst--the lions were used by religionists against other religionists.

You might want to use another analogy. Pol Pot maybe or maybe the Soviet Red Pioneers system and purges. Wait, those don't sound as funny as putting people who believe differently than you into a stadium filled with blood-crazed people so they can get ripped to bloody shreds by wild animals who've been starved.

As a child of religionists who was repeatedly presented to the class as a model of what not to be, I can assure you that it only strengthened my faith. It wasn't until I was at a Christian college where I started questioning what I'd learned at church, and that was because I had to live under the logical extension of the faith, rules-wise, and I saw how it hurt people. You can't force unbelief, just as you can't force belief.

[Why Syzygy]

145. Scoot over! You've got to at least share the stage

with Hitler, Nero, Caligula, Satanists ...

Yuh. A society that puts whole classifications of persons to death. Now THAT'S a society worth endorsing. :sarcasm:

Religious wars, fact or fiction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAz30mbxhWc&feature=channel_page

[Lydia Leftcoast]

147. "Bigot basher"? Oh, the irony!

n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

150. I guess you do not see the irony in using the language that

the religious use against gays - even today - against them?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

157. Bigotry consists of blanket generalizations about any group of people

In fact, yesterday, my church hosted the Communion service that was part of our local Gay Pride Weekend, and we had a hospitality booth at the festival. During the service, individuals and couples came forward for a blessing of affirmation. A volunteer pick up choir of (some of the many) GLBT members of the parish and straight allies (including me) sang an anthem.

Bigotry consists of broad-brush slurs against a group of people.

[TheBigotBasher]

158. Have a read of the article I referred to

(and where I first used this argument) and you will note that religious tolerance is not really universal (and no I do not think "religionists" should be fed to lions).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gays-prepare-to-join-the-rainbow-nation-1722946.html

[kwassa]

166. I think you can shorten your username to the first eight letters.

Safely.

[Dorian Gray]

171. The problem is that you are arguing

against religion to people who are religious, yet don't follow the paradigm that you've placed upon "the religious."

Nobody here uses religion to argue against gay rights or homosexuality. Noone here is trying to legislate a Christian nation.

You are the only one who wants to make any legislation regarding religious belief, and what you are proposing is fascist.

Which doesn't sit well on a democratic board.

[Meshuga]

172. Exactly, and that's when the original poster's broadbrush comes in

rockymountaindem made a good point in a post upthread pointing out that the original poster is barking up the wrong tree.

[Meshuga]

153. Now that you said it...

I want my foreskin back!!! Even when it makes no difference whatsoever to me today, I want it back!

[TheBigotBasher]

154. It got sold as calamari ages ago.

:-)

[Meshuga]

155. Hey, there is one logical reason to keep kosher right there. n/t

[Lerkfish]

176. wild guess: are you an Ayn Randian?

you sound like one.