Without religion there would be nothing holding people back from crime, murder, rape etc,. There needs to be a form of morality in the world whether you believe in a higher power or not something needs to affect the general population decision making process.
Reply to this opinion
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Discussion (16)
::unhide-discussion::
Really, so we have ramped groups of atheists running around committing murders and rapes? I don't see it, I do see groups of "religious" people killing 10s of thousands in the name of god. I see rapes, murders, theft committed in the name of god.
You don't need a higher power to agree that killing someone is bad, or taking what belongs to someone else is wrong, or forcing someone to have sex is wrong. We, as a people, can sit down and agree what the rules are, god or no god. In fact once you take god out of the question, you are left with the truth. They want power over you, over your life, over your property, religion has nothing to do with it. People use religion as an excuse for bad behavior, by saying because my book says this I can take what's yours because you don't believe in the same book as I do. The would wold be a much better place without religion as we would be left with the truth, and the truth is some people want power over you and religion is a great way to exercise that power.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
The killers of which you speak do exactly as you say: they use religion as an excuse. Sans religion, they would find a different excuse.
In making your statement, you look at religion only as a method of control. Originally, that is what most religion was. Now? Not so much.
People are religious because being religious helps them. It gives them hope, community, structure in their lives, and helps to eliminate their fear of death. Most importantly, it motivates people to do good in the world that they would never otherwise do.
You can look at the harms all you want. But no matter how you look at it, the harms created by religion cannot possibly outweigh the immeasurable value that religion provides to billions of people on the planet.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Sorry it took so long to reply, I've been busy.
All religions are about control, nothing more nothing less. Religion dictate who you can and can't have sex with, who you can and can't marry, how women and children are treated, even in the bible a women who is not a virgin on her wedding day is to be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), a child who hit their father or mother is to be put to death (Exodus 21:15) honor killings (Leviticus 21:9 ) those of no (2 Chronicles 15:12-13) or another religion (Exodus 22:19).
In 13 countries I as an atheist face death by LAW, even in most democratic governments discriminate against citizens who have no belief in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy. In the Americas, 11 out of 35 countries (31%) had blasphemy laws. In the Bahamas, where the publication or sale of blasphemous material can be punished with up to two years imprisonment. In Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Malta and Poland where blasphemy laws allow for jail sentences up to three years on charges of offending a religion or believers. Even in the US as of 2012 at least two states still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books.
All in the name of religion.
You state that religion provides immeasurable value to billions, but even today we see religion used to oppress billions of people, used to kill hundreds of thousands. In many places if you happen to belong to the wrong religion and are murdered by someone of the correct faith, the police won't even bother to find the person or arrested them.
Most people who do good don't need religion to motivate them, and if they do need religion to make them do good, then it proves that religion is about control. If they wouldn't do something for the good of the world, but their religion forces them to do so isn't that, in fact, control?
Personally I have found that most religious people are hypocrites, picking parts of their religion they like ignoring what they don't, use religion when it suits them or help them get ahead in the world.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
(Don't worry about the time it takes to reply, I thank you for taking the time to reply at all!)
Indeed, most religious people are hypocrites, taking the parts they want and ignoring the parts they don't want.
Take me, for example. I'm Jewish. I choose to go to synagogue. I choose not to keep kosher. I choose to fast on Yom Kippur. I choose not to let a book dictate whom I can and cannot marry.
In free countries, such as the United States, religion is a choice. Yet the vast majority of Americans are religious. That alone should indicate the value of religion. (Yes, you cite two laws regarding anti-blasphemy laws in the US, but I doubt they're ever enforced, and even if they were, anyone asked to abide by them could easily appeal and win).
But then that calls into question, what about the other things you mentioned?
First, you talk about how atheism is often punishable by fines, jail time, and even death. This, objectively, sucks. For an American who has grown up in a society of vastly diverse faiths and cultures, and where diversity is essentially protected by law.
Just kidding. Yes, this is bad. Yes, this is religion as control.
Then you talk about people killing others in the name of religion.
Ok, I think I already addressed this. It's not necessarily in the name of religion. It's a your-tribe-vs.-my-tribe mentality. I read an interesting paper recently that argued that human cultures have behaviorally evolved towards conflict and war. The aggressive cultures are the surviving cultures. In every walk of humanity there is always an us-vs-them. It's why, to a white person whose grown up only around other white people, people of other races all seem to look the same, and vice-a-versa.
Racism is a perfect example. Racism does not require religion. Racism would occur with or without religion.
The people of my tribe will try to kill the people of your tribe. That is a fact of humanity, separation of the other and dehumanizing of the other.
So where does religion come in? Religion is how people designate their tribe. If religion didn't exist, they would designate some other way. Appearance, language, non-religious culture. Oppression and killing are not caused by religion. Religion is used to facilitate oppressive, deadly, and discriminatory cultures, but it is not the root cause. If religion was taken out of the picture, this would still go on.
If someone is not going to do good, is too lazy or is just a bad person, no book will make them. You're right, most people who do good don't need religion to motivate them. But religion sure helps. Religion provides constant (often weekly) reminders to do good to those around you, and provides a moral guideline on how and why to do so. Religion organizes good into a cohesive force, and if you talk to anyone doing good in the name of their religion, I hardly think that they will feel "forced" or "controlled."
So what are we left with? What, exactly, is the damage that religion has uniquely (and that's a key word here) done? Well, those laws you mentioned, those sure suck. I would argue that if religion didn't exist, they would find some other method of control, but you're right, here it is genuinely a form of control.
Do oppressive laws outweigh the universal benefits towards billions (most of the human race, in fact) that I cited before? The structure it provides in their lives, the sense of belonging, connectivity and community it gives them, the hope, the ability to deal with death, etc.? I think you would be hard pressed to say yes.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
".. damage that religion has uniquely (and that's a key word here) done.."
Religion CONDONES and ENCOURAGES violence against others. it's not just your tribe vs my tribe, it my GOD saying I can oppress you and be a good person and in fact I'm a good person because I oppress you. Pick just about any religious book and you can see it. Kill, enslave those people who don't believe as you do.
"Religion organizes good into a cohesive force, and if you talk to anyone doing good in the name of their religion, I hardly think that they will feel "forced" or "controlled.""
It doesn't matter if they FEEL forced or controlled, the fact they doing it because of their religion is control and force. Look at any group dynamic and you'll see force and control, and it really doesn't matter if you feel forced or that the group was controlling you. Look at a pretty benign group say the girl scouts, do they feel forced or controlled when they sell cookies, probably not, but the group dynamic is such that they may be look down on if they don't. But if you were to ask the girls, odds are they would say they weren't force to sell cookies. But the group dynamics would tell you that if they didn't odds are the other members of the group would look down on them or even shun them if they don't.
"Do oppressive laws outweigh the universal benefits towards billions.."
Yes, there are about 7 billion people in the world the largest religion has about 2.2 billion followers (it's not Islam BTW) says to kill non-believers that is by their book they should kill 4.8 billion people. The second largest religion has about 1.7 billion their book say the same thing. Think about that the "good" books of the two largest religions tell their followers to kill people.
Now if a person picks and choose what part of their religion they follow are they truly part of that religion? Or are they just a group of people who get together to support each other, and if that the case why do they need religion at all?
Just so you know I generally follow my answers and enjoy debating with other people.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
(If you haven't noticed, I also enjoy following my answers and debating with other people. Thanks for making this such a great one!)
"Pick just about any religious book and you can see it. Kill, enslave those people who don't believe as you do." So, how exactly is this not precisely what I was talking about, a your-tribe-vs.-my-tribe mentality? Again, religion was not the motivating factor here. It was put into the religion in the first place because of this mentality, which, as I've already stated, is an inherent trait of humanity and has therefore existed with humanity far longer than organized religion has. We see here this mentality that I continually emphasized simply repeated in a religious text, a pre-existing condition put to paper, but not due to the very nature of religion itself.
"It doesn't matter if they FEEL forced or controlled, the fact they doing it because of their religion is control and force."
Remember when I state that if these people were not going to do good anyway, they wouldn't do good because of religion. Religion is an organizer, not a cause in-of-itself. It turns good will into concrete and collaborative action. Not only would few people doing religious charity work say that they feel oppressed, but few would also say that they are doing it purely because of their religion as well.
(Interesting sidenote: In Judaism, doing good for the sake of religion is impossible; it doesn't count as doing good. There's an idea called "kavanah", meaning intent, that dictates that a good deed is only good if you intend it to be so, not if you're doing it because someone or something told you to. I know this is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to religion, but it's one of the concepts of Judaism that I like the most.)
"Look at a pretty benign group say the girl scouts, do they feel forced or controlled when they sell cookies, probably not, but the group dynamic is such that they may be look down on if they don't. But if you were to ask the girls, odds are they would say they weren't force to sell cookies. "
So, with this paragraph from which this quote comes, you've proven two things, neither of which, I think, work to your advantage.
First, by comparing it to girl scouts, you show me that control isn't inherently bad, and is very often good. So even if I concede the argument that religion is primarily a form of control (which I don't), then now I've lost nothing. You've won no argument proving that the world would be better off without religion. The argument that control=bad is now, to a degree, moot.
Second, by showing me that control is as intrinsic to human nature as tribal warfare. You show me that all group dynamics inevitably have elements of control. Therefore, the only truly "control-free" way of living is absolute anarchy, sans-society, sans-inter-personal cooperation of any sort. Now, you not only have shown me that control is often a good thing, but that control is absolutely essential to life as we know it.
So, is religion purely a force for control? No, I don't think so. If it was, does it help your side? Thanks to your own arguments, not at all.
"Yes, there are about 7 billion people in the world the largest religion has about 2.2 billion followers (it's not Islam BTW) says to kill non-believers that is by their book they should kill 4.8 billion people. The second largest religion has about 1.7 billion their book say the same thing. Think about that the "good" books of the two largest religions tell their followers to kill people."
Yes, and how many of those billions of people actually abide by the warlike parts of their religion? Under this strain of thought, then logically, we should be locked in the very midst of the greatest war in human history, billions against billions in an epic offensive of genocide.
Yet...we're not.
Because, exactly as you say, people are picking and choosing parts of their religion. They pick out the good, and ignore the bad.
"Now if a person picks and choose what part of their religion they follow are they truly part of that religion? Or are they just a group of people who get together to support each other, and if that the case why do they need religion at all?"
Yes, I would say they are part of that religion. As I mentioned before, I don't keep kosher. I don't follow most of the rules of Judaism. Even Orthodox Jews don't. An all-or-nothing approach to religion is a false dichotomy, a black-and-white logical fallacy. A religion is a culture, a way of life. Not abiding to one part of it doesn't disqualify you as a whole. I have a friend who had a quinceanera, knows Mexican dance to an amazing extent, celebrates Mexican holidays...yet doesn't speak Spanish at home. Is she no longer Mexican? Saying yes would be ridiculous.
"Or are they just a group of people who get together to support each other, and if that the case why do they need religion at all?"
Technically? They don't. Just as you don't need a gun to kill someone.
But just as a gun sure helps to kill someone, religion sure helps to get people together into a single community. It provides a default set of common morals, and, to an extent, beliefs, and often even a physical location around which people can rally. Because most major religion is also incredibly widespread, it allows for people to have an easy community and support system to instantly turn to wherever they go. Can communities unite without religion? Yes, they definitely can. But it wouldn't be as widespread; the unity would likely only occur among a small group of people in a set place. Religion creates communities of thousands, of billions, as well as creating the support and intimacy of small local groups. That's something that few alternatives, if any, are able to accomplish (especially with such frequency as religion).
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Glad for the response.
"First, by comparing it to girl scouts, you show me that control isn't inherently bad, and is very often good."
But it is control, even if control isn't inherently bad, which I disagree with BTW the only control that I feel isn't inherently bad is self control, it only take one bad person to turn the group. Now while I doubt the girl scouts will turn into some radical group, I could see a scout leader leading them in protesting against or for some political movement. And the girls would feel obligated to join in, even if they disagree. Now take a group that already had radical ideas say UKIP, how much would it really take for that group to become extreme and violent? They already claim they are facing threats of physical abuse when they protest, how much would it take for them to say we need to get them before they get us? Now add a religious element where someone can point to the "good" book and say, "God had commanded us."
"Yes, and how many of those billions of people actually abide by the warlike parts of their religion? "
And those the do followed the word of their religion get branded as extremest, and we have plenty of those in the US, both Christian and non-Christian, who do take their book literally and do see the world in black and white, and if given enough power would spread their word of their book through violence and say convert or die. All under the name of their god. We in the US and most other parts of the world have been lucky in that we tend to shutdown such groups before they get too big and can do too much damage, but as we've seen in the news there are those who are more than willing to follow the "true" word of their book. In just one religion the low estimate of extremest is 125,000 the upper is around 300,000,000 who would use force to spread the word. And we've seen in the news they are willing kill in the name of god, under the banner of religion, all so that the "right" people are in control.
"So, is religion purely a force for control? No, I don't think so. If it was, does it help your side? Thanks to your own arguments, not at all."
I will disagree, in a religion your are expected to do certain things, although you don't keep kosher, I'm willing to bet you do follow a lot of the rules and many of them you don't even think about, after all it's the way it's always been done. My mom is Catholic, she still goes to Mass, goes to confession, does her penance, she followed the churches rules and didn't use birth control, etc. That is control, do this or go to hell, a eternity of pain and suffering. That is the ultimate control, endless suffering, unless you follow the rules.
Just look at the history of religion and you see countless wars being fought under the banner of region. Would most of them be fought without religion, maybe, maybe not, we can't ever know. But we do know they were fought under that banner. And million have already died, and people are still being killing in the name of religion.
"....Is she no longer Mexican? Saying yes would be ridiculous."
Is she a citizen of Mexico? That's what the word Mexican implies that she belong to a groups of people that are citizens of Mexico. She maybe decedent of Mexicans, that that makes her as much Mexican as me being being Norwegian. I'm descended from Norwegians, as well as Native American, German, French and a few others. That doesn't make me Norwegian, Native American, German or French. I am a citizen of the United State, which we generally call American, even though I eat Kjøttboller (think Swedish meatballs), Svinekoteletter, Lutefisk, etc know the history of many of the Norse gods, it still doesn't make me Norwegian, any more than eating Mexican food makes me Mexican. So unless your friend is a citizen of Mexico, I would say she isn't a Mexican.
You don't need religion to provide a common set of morals, we have laws, that say what you can and can't do, you can't legally take someone life
Personally I wouldn't look to any religion for morals, under most religions you can kill a son or daughter who is disobedient, kill a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night, kill someone who doesn't believe as you do. Kill women who have been raped, allows women to be raped, allows women to be sold as sex slaves, allows slavery, discriminates against the handicapped, and on and on, the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran is not a place to look for morals.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"the only control that I feel isn't inherently bad is self control."
Which is unfortunately the rarest kind...
But in all honesty, think back to what I said about society. Society is control. You, right now, are being controlled, both consciously and subconsciously. Consciously, you know that, right now, you are not allowed to go out and kill someone, or drive at 200 mph, or sell crack, or randomly start fires. Law is control. Order is control. Society is, inherently, control. So if you say that all control other than self-control is inherently bad, then you must by definition say that society and laws are a bad idea. So I ask you, is this true? Because you think that control is bad, do you find all semblance of enforced order or society bad as well? If not, how do you resolve this contradiction?
Subconsciously, you are also being controlled. Your childhood affects how you think. If you had been raised in a devout Christian household in a permanently happy, perfect family, if you had, as some Christians put it, felt Jesus, you would probably be Christian today. If you had been raised in a Carry-esque household, on the other hand, you likely would've turned away from Christianity.
Now I don't know why you don't ascribe to religion. If you've always thought that way, there was likely some causation from your surroundings. If you haven't, that means there was a change somewhere down the road, and my guess is that something external changed it.
Everything we do and think is a response to outside stimuli. The world controls us.
But even if you don't accept that (and you might definitely not; that's some shaky existential ground I just set out there), then your genes control you. They determine how you look, and by extension, how you are treated and perceived by others and by yourself. They determine, to an extent, how you think and behave, your tendencies towards certain emotions over others, even how fast you learn.
And beyond that, think of the language we're communicating in. English. Language itself composes a worldview derived from the connotations and specificity of words. If you are an average person, you probably only know English or know one other language other than English, seriously limiting your worldview. The words you speak control how you think (also a big theme in Metal Gear Solid V, coincidentally).
As an extension of that, my guess is that you haven't spent serious, quality time in more than four cultures in your entire life (again, just assuming that you're a normal person). Your culture determines how you think, whether you recognize it or not.
So my point? You cannot escape control. If there is such a thing as free will, it is so infinitely intertwined with other things that it cannot be separated. Control is a part of life.
I know this all sounds very defeatist and negative, but it isn't supposed to be. It's only a bad thing if you view control as an inherently bad thing, in which all life becomes instant misery as you realize the boundaries of control from which you cannot escape. Even if you can escape money and society and live in a state of anarchy, you will never be able to escape from yourself, from your own experiences and from your own past.
And that sounds very condescending. It's not meant to be. Well, that concludes my lengthy philosophical argument about the inevitability and usefulness of control, and why it is not inherently bad.
"And those the do followed the word of their religion get branded as extremest."
Cool. They're the vast minority. We already went over this.
"and if given enough power would spread their word of their book through violence and say convert or die."
Again, minority. Again, religion is not the root cause.
"We in the US and most other parts of the world have been lucky in that we tend to shutdown such groups before they get too big and can do too much damage,"
...so what I'm reading here is that your argument lacks impact in the US...
"as we've seen in the news there are those who are more than willing to follow the "true" word of their book."
Ok, we all know that the news blows things up (no pun intended) bigger than they actually are. You never see a news report saying "devout religious person gives pizza to homeless guy." You seem like a smart person. We both know you cannot use the news media to judge the amount of bad things in the world (ie, you rarely hear about how poverty is at its lowest point in all of human history, percentage-wise).
"In just one religion the low estimate of extremest is 125,000 the upper is around 300,000,000 who would use force to spread the word."
Ummm...that's quite a bit of a range you've got there. When the upper bounds of an estimate is 2400 the lower bounds, we stop calling it an estimate and start calling it a "meaningless series of numbers." I'm assuming you're talking about Islam. What, exactly, is your source for this? (rude tone is not intended; this is just how I write)
"And we've seen in the news they are willing kill in the name of god, under the banner of religion, all so that the "right" people are in control."
Again, in the name of god, doesn't mean because of god. We've gone over this. Not the root cause.
"I'm willing to bet you do follow a lot of the rules and many of them you don't even think about, after all it's the way it's always been done."
Of course I do! Obviously, I think that I choose what parts of the culture to abide by, but I know enough to recognize that there are some things I do naturally, without really noticing, that are the product of my culture (I say "oy" a lot). So what we're saying here, is that religion is just as "bad" and just as much a "force for control" as any society or culture. Even notwithstanding the point that control is not inherently bad, now this is just a non-unique argument.
But that's beside the point. You argue that religion exists for control. I argue that control is an aspect, as it is in everything, but that it does not exist specifically to control. I've already given you, what I believe, are the main purposes of religion in previous comments.
"Just look at the history of religion and you see countless wars being fought under the banner of region. Would most of them be fought without religion, maybe, maybe not, we can't ever know."
Think back to what I believe was the first comment I made. This question depends entirely on how you look at religion, if you simply take it away, or if it had never existed in the first place.
I already conceded that if religion had never existed in the first place, we would probably be better off.
But the hypothetical we are currently arguing is whether or not the world would be better off if religion just suddenly vanished. None of those dead people would come back, none of those wars would be un-fought. I don't think they were caused by religion anyway (see pretty much everything above), but either way, this argument, as well, is non-unique.
"That's what the word Mexican implies that she belong to a groups of people that are citizens of Mexico."
Ummm...not really. Part of it, sure. But not all of it. I have a friend who was born in China. He's the most Scottish-looking guy you've ever seen. He doesn't speak a word of Chinese, and knows nothing about Chinese culture. Yet he is a Chinese citizen.
My girlfriend's parents were born in China. She speaks Chinese. She knows how to cook Chinese food. She's in touch with the local Chinese community, and with Chinese traditions. Yet she was born here, so is not a citizen of China.
A piece of paper does not determine your culture.
"That doesn't make me Norwegian, Native American, German or French."
Technically? Yes, it does. I mean, no it doesn't, because culture is more than where the genes you have came from .
"I am a citizen of the United State, which we generally call American, even though I eat Kjøttboller (think Swedish meatballs), Svinekoteletter, Lutefisk, etc know the history of many of the Norse gods, it still doesn't make me Norwegian, "
...but it is partially where the genes you have came from. Culture is a multi-sided coin. It is not a legal proclamation, nor is it a black-and-white declaration. If you were to get Norwegian citizenship, would you suddenly be, well, Norwegian? Only legally; you'd be no more Norwegian than you are now.
"So unless your friend is a citizen of Mexico, I would say she isn't a Mexican."
Ouch. Now that's a real insult. So if it was suddenly revealed to you that you are not, in fact, a citizen of the United States (just by some fluke there was a glitch and the system, and now you're deleted), are you now no longer US-ian? Again, legal proclamations are a tangential way to determine someone's culture and heritage.
"You don't need religion to provide a common set of morals, we have laws, that say what you can and can't do, you can't legally take someone life"
Ironically, our laws, and most of our western common morality, descends from Christianity. Funny how that works.
But you're right. We have laws saying you can't take someone's life. I even discussed this before (method of control, btw!). We do not, however, have laws saying you should be nice to people, or neighborly, or respect your mother and father, or do volunteer work. We shouldn't have laws saying this, but these are unarguably great things to have in society. Religion organizes these aspects that laws justifiably can't to ensure they reach higher potential and reach further in society.
"Personally I wouldn't look to any religion for morals, under most religions you can kill a son or daughter who is disobedient, kill a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night, kill someone who doesn't believe as you do. Kill women who have been raped, allows women to be raped, allows women to be sold as sex slaves, allows slavery, discriminates against the handicapped, and on and on, the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran is not a place to look for morals."
It's not a place to look for morals if you're specifically trying to look for the sh*t. That's like saying movies as a whole are a terrible medium for art because Michael Bay movies exist. When all you look for is the sh*t, all you see is the sh*t.
But you're right! These rules exist! And that's bad! Which is why most people ignore them anyway! Because most people don't look for the sh*t. They use religion as I argue it should and is most frequently used. A guideline, not a law book. When I'm looking through a book on how to build computers, I'm allowed to not buy every part they recommend, and choose some stuff on my own. Does this defeat the value of the guidebook, to me, personally? No. Guides are more useful than instructions anyway. Which is why the word "mentor" has a far more positive connotation than "master."
Religion is a mentor, not a master. It is a guidebook, not an instruction manual. And most of these negative commands? The vast majority of people ignore them completely. The simple fact that they exist is irrelevant, because the impacts do not, or rarely, manifest.
I look forward to your response. :)
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
This took a little while to think about, thank you.
“But in all honesty, think back to what I said about society…..”
Of course society is control, but it’s control that we as a people put on ourselves, and there are, at least in the US, ways to legally kill a person, drive 200 mph, and sell, well not crack itself but, cocaine, but the laws of a society that are agreed upon by its citizens are different than religious laws, religious laws are “set in stone” while laws of society change.
Now I contend that even that control is inherently bad, not that far in the past we had Jim Crow laws, was that anywhere near a just law? No, and today we continue to see unjust laws passed, and even “good” laws used to oppress people. If someone has control, odds are they will abuse that power. And because control over others is inherently bad we must be extra vigilant to ensure those in power don’t abuse that control. Look at civil forfeiter laws, on the surface a good law, we take from those people who broke the law, their ill gotten gains, but today police take property they allege, note the word allege, is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. If you happen to be caring a large amount of cash on you, for whatever or no reason, and you happened to be stopped and the police find the cash, they can take it from you and you have to PROVE you didn’t come by the money illegally, they call it policing for profit. There is a case where a 22 year old was selling drugs, allegedly, out of his parents home, the parents weren’t involved and claimed no knowledge of the crime, the police seized their home, kick them and their minor children out into the street. They haven’t been charged with a crime, they didn’t buy the home with drug money, and yet the police took it. They did get their home back after it made national news. So I don’t see a contradiction, what I see control being used in bad ways, and it goes to prove that control is inherently bad even when passed with the best of intentions.
“Subconsciously, you are also being controlled. Your childhood affects how you think. If you had been raised in a devout Christian household in a permanently happy, perfect family,…”
The causation of me becoming an atheist, is simple, I read the Bible. Something I was encouraged to do. Once you read and understand most religious texts you will see that religion isn’t about “god” it’s about control and suppressing others.
“Everything we do and think is a response to outside stimuli. The world controls us….”
The world doesn’t control, we respond to outside stimuli, and while as humans we have built in responses, fight flight etc, we can have the self-control to overcome those build in responses.
We are discovering many emotions are taught to us and thus we can become “harder” or “softer”. And while some people may learn faster that is generally a random thing. In which we have no control and even nature itself doesn’t play much of a role in. A random exposure to some chemical, natural or otherwise, at just the right time can influence many of the things your genes control.
“And beyond that, think of the language we're communicating in. English. Language itself composes a worldview ….”
I learned enough Korean to pass my black belt test, I’m currently trying to learn enough Japanese to pass my black belt test, I took Spanish in college. I listen to news and talk out of Canada and the BBC as well as the US. So am about as well informed as I can be living in the middle of the US.
“So my point? You cannot escape control. If there is such a thing as free will,..”-
I really hate to disagree with you but there is free will, without freewill, there would be no crime, nobody would ever break a law. Just because you follow the law doesn’t mean you don’t have freewill it does mean you decided to follow what your cultural norms.
“I know this all sounds very defeatist and negative, but it isn't supposed to be…”
No life doesn’t become instant misery and it does mean that you might fight against the boundaries that others have put upon you. Look at Martin Luther King he fought against boundaries that other set against him, and he change many of them. And while you can’t escape your own experiences and past, you can learn from them and change how you act and react.
“Cool. They're the vast minority. We already went over this.”
But if religion is good then why is following the words and laws of said religion bad?
“Again, minority. Again, religion is not the root cause.”
But, religion does say it’s right and just and it give permission for people to act.
“...so what I'm reading here is that your argument lacks impact in the US...”
No, there has been a lot of impact in the US, forcing the government to overreact, to exert even more control. What I meant by damage is the number of lives lost. In the US, unlike other parts of the world, we are given the illusion of security. Security that didn’t stop the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, etc. So we give up freedoms for an illusion, and others have more control. Personally I’d put that in the win column for the terrorist.
“Ok, we all know that the news blows things up (no pun intended) bigger than they actually are…”
You do see that in the local papers, but the big whatever get’s headlines while the person doing the good work on the ground never gets a mention. I’ve brought this up before; the protester screaming for higher wages gets air time, while the person tutoring people so they can get higher wages is never seen. The news is about selling ads, and good news doesn’t sell.
“Ummm...that's quite a bit of a range you've got there….”
The number are so varied because of how people define extremist, Pew Global Attitudes Project which questioned Muslim attitudes toward suicide bombing and civilian attacks and other measures of support for terrorism, came up with the 300,000,000, now that doesn’t mean they would commit acts of terror themselves but that at least in certain situations they would support it. A Gallup poll found that 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified 6.5% “mostly”, 23.1% “partially”
al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure
That’s why you see such a wide spread, it how you define a radical, is just saying you think 9/11 was morally justified does that make you a radical, or completely, or maybe if you only support acts of terror. What is your definition of a radical?
“Again, in the name of god, doesn't mean because of god. We've gone over this…”
But in most religious books “god” commands that certain people be killed. So a lot of killing were not only done in the name of “god” but at “god’s” command.
"Ummm...not really. Part of it, sure. But not all of it….”
That would make me whatever, if I’m not a citizen of the US and was suddenly told I’m a citizen of Japan, that would make me Japanese, it not an insult it is what it is. I don’t speak much Japanese, so unless we’re counting, and talking about kicks, blocks, punches and where they are suppose to land, I’m not going to be saying or understanding much. You could say, you’re not a true Japanese because you weren’t born there and it’s only a fluke that you’re a citizen, but that would still make me Japanese.
“Ironically, our laws, and most of our western common morality, descends from Christianity…”
And Muslims would say it comes from the Qur’an, and blank would say it comes from their book. Many of the “laws” of the bible can be found in the Qur’an and other works. The laws are pretty common between all cultures, don’t take what’s not yours, don’t kill, etc yes there are some variations on the laws, which led to a lot of friction, many Native Americas in the past couldn’t understand “owning” land so when they “sold” it in their mind they were selling nothing because nobody own the land. That led to may fights and lost of lives.
"But you're right. We have laws saying you can't take someone's life…”
We do have laws that say we have to be nice to people, or at least how we act toward them. I can’t slander you, walk up and hit you. We also have laws that say you can do “volunteer” work (community service) in place of going to jail, and sometimes you’re not given a choice on that.
“It's not a place to look for morals if you're specifically trying to look for the sh*t…”
But how much of a guidebook is it when you must ignore a good portion of it? The bible is really more bloody than the Qur’an, but christens are better at ignoring it. (On a side note I find it funny when christens complain about Sharia law, and seem to forget that most of those laws are in the bible.) But let’s look at one commandment Thou shall not kill, and yet “god” order people to kill in the name of “god” so “god” doesn’t even keep the commandment. So in the end it seems like you’re saying is that “guidebook” is irrelevant, and with that I agree.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Don't worry about the time it takes you to write responses; there's no rush!
"the laws of a society that are agreed upon by its citizens are different than religious laws, religious laws are “set in stone” while laws of society change."
It seems as if you've now made another exception, besides self-control, to "control is inherently bad." So, first of all, the plasticity of the laws in society depends entirely on the society. Some societies have rigid, non-changing laws, yet even a rigid non-democratic society is preferable to total anarchy. Second of all, religious laws are definitely not set in stone. Sure, you can't go back and re-write the rules of the book, but you can easily change what the religion actually requires and does not require. This is especially true because religious texts usually have a high degree of versatility when it comes to interpretation. Ex: Christians consider the Old Testament to be canonical. Yet they do not keep kosher. Why not? They interpreted this rule as directed towards only the Israelites, and as such, they are exempt.
But most importantly, and this is something I repeatedly emphasize, people aren't religious because they're forced to be, they're religious because they want to be. Even in countries where a certain religion is mandatory, the vast majority of the populace considers that religion and integral and beneficial part of their life anyway. They consent, so, in your words, they "put on ourselves" the laws of their own religion (many of which religious people freely choose to ignore anyway, further reinforcing the consensual nature of religion).
Anyway, I would pose to you the question, and please do answer this, considering the type of societal control you find to be acceptable, would you consider the US to be an acceptable society?
"If someone has control, odds are they will abuse that power. And because control over others is inherently bad we must be extra vigilant to ensure those in power don’t abuse that control."
I can agree with you there, hence the checks-and-balances foundation of our government.
"Look at civil forfeiter laws, on the surface a good law, we take from those people who broke the law, their ill gotten gains, but today police take property they allege, note the word allege, is involved in a crime."
Great example! Have you seen the Last Week Tonight on this?
"So I don’t see a contradiction, what I see control being used in bad ways, and it goes to prove that control is inherently bad even when passed with the best of intentions."
Woah woah woah. Ok. Keeping in mind the question about the US I posed to you above, let me pose to you another question (again, not hypotheical), because society is control, do you find society itself, even with good intentions, to be an inherently bad thing?
"The causation of me becoming an atheist, is simple, I read the Bible. Something I was encouraged to do. Once you read and understand most religious texts you will see that religion isn’t about “god” it’s about control and suppressing others."
Please don't consider this an attack, but I am curious as to how much religious texts you've read. Seriously, I'm just curious. This is not an attempt to discredit you.
So you read the Bible, huh? Then let me tell you, you know more about the Bible than most Christians. Most Christians haven't read it. But even though this seems like a hilarious hypocrisy, this actually helps my side more than yours. Though most Christians haven't read the Bible, they understand many of the core moral philosophies, because that's what's taught in Sunday school, in Church, and in everyday culture. The awful parts of the Bible, the selling you daughters type of thing, is left out of Sunday school, left out of the Church, and left out of everyday society. As it should be. That passage has nothing to contribute to the world.
But as a result, most Christians, and by extension Christianity as a whole, absorbs, practices, and preaches only the good while forgetting about the bad.
You make the huge mistake of judging a religion by its text, and not by its followers, when in reality the overlap is small. Religious texts are not only not meant to be taken literally, but their negative aspects tend to fade into obscurity in the face of the masses of the religion itself.
(Example: In the 613 commandments, the last commandments discuss a guy named Amalek, how we're not supposed to forget what he did to the Jewish people. Well, apart from rabbis, I am the only Jew I know who even knows the name Amalek, much less what he did to the Jewish people. So the commandment about how we're supposed to kill all of Amalek's descendants and children? It has exactly zero impact in the real world, because the Jewish religion itself pays no attention to that commandment.)
"we can have the self-control to overcome those build in responses."
Well, sort of. We can, but even then, our ability to is largely determined by our genes (some people are, genetically, more prone to addiction than others) and our upbringing. If you're forty and have never learned self-control because your parents where rarely around and yelled at you when they were, you probably will not have a well-developed self-control ability, of not fault or decision of your own.
"We are discovering many emotions are taught to us and thus we can become “harder” or “softer”."
Yes, but even then, we do not control what the world decides to expose to us. Will it send us to war and harden us? Or will it place a child in front of our eyes and soften us? It is random chance that manipulates our emotions; we are at the mercy, we are being controlled by, chaos. And there is nothing we can do about it.
"I really hate to disagree with you but there is free will, without freewill, there would be no crime, nobody would ever break a law. Just because you follow the law doesn’t mean you don’t have freewill it does mean you decided to follow what your cultural norms."
Yet those who break the law rarely do so out of "free will", but usually the opposite: out of necessity. I need to eat, but I have no money, so I rob. Or I need a drink (addiction) but I have no money, so I rob. Crime is commonly need-driven, a result of animalistic desire rather than "free will."
When it is not need-driven, it is often passion-driven. In which case it is still not free will, but rather control of emotions.
When it is not either of those, it is sometimes mental-illness driven. Again, not free will, but the result of a physical abnormality in the brain dictating and influencing the actions of a person.
And often, it is just lifestyle-driven. You rob because your parents robbed. You take drugs because your friends all took drugs when you were a kid. You rape because the sub-culture you were raised in says that's ok. Now it's control-from-the-past, still not free will.
And for those who follow the law? Also, probably not from free will. More likely the result of a childhood and society with importance of rules, or want to avoid punishments that come from breaking laws. Or better yet, morals and ethics that you probably were given from somewhere else, parents, society, teachers, books.
The discussion about the existence of free will is a great one, but not one that I want to have right now. Let's leave it at this: I believe that free will is real. But I also believe that the methods of control and influence in life are so incalculably numerous that their influence cannot be separated from freely made choices. As a result, it is impossible to attribute any behavior solely to control or to free will.
"And while you can’t escape your own experiences and past, you can learn from them and change how you act and react."
Indeed you can! But even this, and your MLK example, are subject to the inter-twining of free-will and control. MLK, for example, did not simply get out of bed one morning and think "I'm going to fight racism." He had a father who (ironic that you brought this example up) instilled religious principles of brotherhood in him that he then applied in his own career as a preacher. He, like his father, was named after a figure famous for challenging authority. He had a close white friend when he was a boy. He actually challenged literal interpretations of the Bible frequently in Sunday school. He went to a school named after Book T. Washington. His great speaking voice and high intelligence (both factors beyond his own control) got him into debating (which reinforced his challenging personality). In short, his resistance to control was arguably caused by other forms of out-of-free-will control, his father, his namesake, his faith, who he happened to befriend, what genes he happened to have, etc.
"But if religion is good then why is following the words and laws of said religion bad?"
Because, as mentioned above, the words and laws, the book, is not the religion. The people, the communities, are the religion. I can write a book whenever I want, but I have no religion until I have a following. And even then, the religion is the followers, not my book. My book is still just...a book.
"But, religion does say it’s right and just and it give permission for people to act."
No, human nature says its right and gave permission to act. Someone just wrote an aspect of human nature down on paper. And again, human nature existed far before the book did...
"So we give up freedoms for an illusion, and others have more control."
But we willingly surrender those freedoms, because we like the illusions. That's not a win for the terrorists, a win for the terrorists is if we allow their threat to force us to live in fear. With security theater, we give ourselves peace-of-mind, which improves quality of life and mental well being. That's no more a win for the terrorists than "Keep calm and carry on" was a win for the Nazis.
"The news is about selling ads, and good news doesn’t sell."
I'll drink to that!
"The number are so varied because of how people define extremist..."
I don't question you honesty, but I was unable to find some of the sources you mentioned. Can you please provide me with links to the sources you used? Until I get those links, I'll leave my response at this: support of extremism is cultivated by extremists, not by the religion.
"But in most religious books “god” commands that certain people be killed. So a lot of killing were not only done in the name of “god” but at “god’s” command."
Yet in all religions it is also emphasized that the morals that apply to god do not apply to people. Not only are there few people who justify religious killings by saying "well, god did it too" (they usually use other things; in Islam, it's usually justified by a series of non-Quran non-canonical texts from a few centuries ago), but anyone who says so has no understanding of the concept of god.
"You could say, you’re not a true Japanese because you weren’t born there and it’s only a fluke that you’re a citizen, but that would still make me Japanese."
I'm not going to copy-paste my whole argument again, but remember, there is the definition of something legally, and there is the definition of something culturally. You cannot arbitrarily exclude one definition. By fulfilling any one or both of the definitions, you fulfill the term as a whole. So under this framework concerning the arbitrary nature of definitions, I will concede that in this hypothetical you are Japanese, but only if you concede that in my hypothetical you are Mexican. If not, please explain to me why the legal definition is inherently more important than the cultural one.
"And Muslims would say it comes from the Qur’an, and blank would say it comes from their book."
Minor correction based on what I've said above: Not from the book, but from the core ideals.
"We do have laws that say we have to be nice to people, or at least how we act toward them. I can’t slander you, walk up and hit you."
Ok, that's very different. I'm talking about something saying you have to be/should be actively nice. You're talking about laws that simply restrain people from being actively malevolent. Completely different sides of the coin.
"But how much of a guidebook is it when you must ignore a good portion of it?"
A pretty terribly written guidebook, that's for sure! But religion, and this conversation, isn't a Goodreads review. Because religion isn't the book.
Assume you have a terribly written guidebook on thing C and you give it to person A, and well-written one on thing C to person B.
Person A uses the terrible guidebook, but does thing C right. Person B screws it up royally, despite his flawless guidebook. So, which guidebook, in the end, elicited the better result? The terribly written one.
In this debate, the effect is what matters. The people are what matters. The roots? Irrelevant. Religious texts are terribly written by basically any standard, but they result in so much more than the contents of their pages, which falls by the wayside in emphasis of the religion itself.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
“It seems as if you've now made another exception, …”
Many laws do depends entirely on the plasticity society, we see a bad law and we change it. Women can now vote, it took a long time and strong free-willed people went to jail to change said laws but society did change. But, I don’t see it as an exception, but as an extension of self-control. Say the two of us agree that I won’t go onto your property and you won’t go onto mine. It’s my self-control that keeps me from entering your property and your self-control that keep you off mine. Law of society are kind of the same way, we rely on self-control of the citizen to obey what we as a society have voted on, and for the most part it works. The “problem” is we rely on others to enforce those rules, which in turn gives them power over others, which in turn lead to abuse, and that makes control over others bad. It’s happen time and time again once a person gets power; it takes a lot of self-control not to abuse it. We’ve seen it in all societies, it may be a survival characteristic in humans, to use whatever advantage we have to help ourselves and the ones we care for
As to why Christians don’t keep kosher, that’s easy, it was a quick way to grow a religion, you take a bunch of non-believers, who won’t ever become kosher, (which I understand bacon tastes great) and say this rule doesn’t apply anymore so you can join us and still eat what you’re eating. It also goes to prove how religious people are good at picking and choosing what laws they will and will not follow.
“But most importantly, and this is something I repeatedly emphasize, people aren't religious because they're forced to be….”
So join or die doesn’t carry any weight? Follow the rule or die or be punished? There are many places where that is a reality. And while the majority consider religion is integral part of their life, and beneficial given the advantages they can take, after all if they aren’t part of said religion they won’t find work, be able to shop, etc. It doesn’t make religion good, the fact you are forced to join, no matter if you find it integral and beneficial, shows how much power they have given up. If religion was good why do they need to force people to join?
“Anyway, I would pose to you the question, and please do answer this, considering the type of societal control you find to be acceptable, would you consider the US to be an acceptable society?”
The US is an acceptable society on the whole, but we are becoming more and more unacceptable. What we need is minimal control, the smallest possible government, with check and balances that hold those in power responsible for their actions. Many times we allow people to have power and have no responsibly for their actions. Even if they break the law they can’t be held responsible for their actions.
Yes, we need rules, but those rules have to solve a problem. We have too many people trying to micromanage everyone else. Basically, if what you’re doing doesn’t directly affect someone else, why can’t you do it? Say you want to plant corn in your front yard, sorry can’t do that in Michigan, what harm you have done, none. Does it affect anyone else, not really, they may have to look at it, but yet the people with the power have said no. Real law, and real charges were filed, the charges were dropped on the lady once it went national.
So while I know we need laws, rules they should only be there to solve a problem.
“Woah woah woah. Ok. Keeping in mind the question about the US I posed to you above, let me …”
The short answer is yes, society itself is inherently bad. Let’s take the word society and replace it with government, after all most societies are basically a government with a group of leaders and followers. Is government itself inherently bad. I contend yes, look at almost any society, even a homeowner association, which is really a government over a small society. Some are very well run, but most end up with those in power abusing those who aren’t. It doesn’t take much search to find HOA’s that abuse their members. Then look at any government, and see the abuses they have and are doing to their own citizens. Look at how government takes power from the citizens, sometimes with the best of intentions, and give it to others. And time and time again those who are given that power abuse it. Take the TSA, they really isn’t doing that good of a job, given that the security measure we had in place before 9/11 were adequate. (Don’t forget before 9/11 hijackers were after money or a ride to Cuba, the rule was to follow their orders, something that wouldn’t happen today). So had the government just said, you need to lock the cockpit doors and not to let anyone in, we wouldn’t have TSA and would be just as safe. But look at the TSA abuse, the way they have searched children, trust me if you touched a child like that you’d be in jail, the thefts, etc. First they have the power, and you see the abuse of said power.
“Please don't consider this an attack, but I am curious…”
It’s a fair question, one that I’m happy to answer. I read the bible cover to cover and studied it. Noting all the inconsistencies parts that were just wrong, asking question of those who were supposed to have the knowledge, only to hear rationalization on why such and such inconsistencies really isn’t one. Then I went on to study even more, and realized how much of the bible was left out of the bible, how much of it was from much older stories, which is why we have two flood stories in the bible. Many books were left out of the bible when the committee (yes committee) voted on what books to include in the bible. Now it’s been a long time since I’ve read the bible, and the Quran is really a long read, and I’m not through it all the way yet, (odds are I probably won’t finish it). Then finally I asked many, many religious people one question, does “god” hate amputees?
Of course I was told no, so then I asked this series of questions.
Didn’t Jesus say “All things are possible to the one believing."
The general answer I get is “Of course.”
And when the blind man was healed and so he could see, wasn’t he told his faith healed him?
The general answer is “That’s what the bible says.”
Then given the number of Christians that are missing a limb, and given at least ONE of them must have faith, why haven’t any of them grown back a limb?
That’s generally when I get a lot of rationalizations; god has other plans for them.
What god has plans for ALL of them? Really? Plans that require them to be an amputee? They couldn’t suddenly grow a limb and be even a bigger force for god? That’s generally when I get “it’s god will”, “we aren’t meant to understand god’s way.” Etc.
Once I added it all up, I realized that religion was about power over others nothing more, nothing less.
“Well, sort of. We can, but even then, our ability to is largely determined by our genes..”-
Even at 40 you can learn self-control, and addicts can change. Yes, it is harder for some people than others, but it can and has been done. I come from a long line of people who abuse alcohol, I don’t, not because I’m strong than someone else, I have a two drink limit which I seldom break I have enough self-control to stop. I have a cousin who abused hard drugs, but she would go months at a time without using, peer pressure more than anything else caused her to start using then she became addicted, and she would go into treatment, get clean stay clean for months only to go back to her “friends” and start using again, become addicted again and on and on. Just because our genes say why are prone to addiction doesn’t mean we have to become addict.
“Yes, but even then, we do not control what the world decides to expose to us….”
Some people war does harden them, some it breaks, but there are studies, it been a long time since I’ve look at them, were the shown that you can make a person harder or softer, emotionally, if you train them right. And we have shown that very young children are taught how to have empathy for others. Yes there are those who have a different wiring in their brain who will never feel for others, but they are rare and far between.
“Yet those who break the law rarely do so out of "free will", but usually the opposite: out of necessity...”
Yes, some crime is out of the need for food, drugs, etc. But, I contend, that much more crime is committed because it’s easier than working. I have a cousin, who I think has worked at an honest job no more than two or three years in his life. He’s stole from every family member, committed fraud, ran drugs, etc. Why, because he could make a fast buck, BTW he currently in jail for running drugs again, he has been give many opportunities to straighten his life out. The government paid his way thought mechanics school where he became a certified mechanic (he was a felon at that point so the government tried to help him put his life together, I of course had to pay my own way through college because I followed the rules). His parents put him through advance mechanics school, and what did he do? He stole from his employer because he felt he wasn’t getting paid enough. Then he went on to commit insurance fraud. The crooks I’ve talk too did it for the money, nothing more nothing less. Maybe it just the ones I’ve talk too, but that’s been my experience. Just so you know I was poor growing up and grew up in a poor lower middle class neighborhood, some of my old friends went to jail other like myself studied hard and made our lives better.
“Let's leave it at this: I believe that free will is real…”
OK
" Because, as mentioned above, the words and laws, the book, is not the religion….”
But religion is based on a book, or writing, to say it’s just a book isn’t really genuine. Do you know who wrote the Torah? Of course not, but people are following the rules and laws of said book. When you say I’m Jewish, are you not saying this is the book that I follow? Even if you choose to ignore parts of it? Just like you’re not following the person or persons who wrote the Torah, a religion really doesn’t need a person to follow. Christians happen to have Jesus, the Muslim have Muhammad to point too, but how much of their book did they write? The Bible and the Qur’an is full of retelling of the same stories, that date back far farther then either book. So is Jesus or Muhammad really necessary, given they probably didn’t write or say much of what was written down. Are not their followers just following a book?
“No, human nature says its right and gave permission to act…”
That may be true but religion and the books and the people in charge of their religion, tell them it good and right.
“But we willingly surrender those freedoms, because we like the illusions…”
"Keep calm and carry on" The poster was intended to raise the morale of the British public, threatened with widely predicted mass air attacks on major cities. Something like 2.5 million copies were printed but were put into cold storage to be used after serious air raids most weren’t used and were destroyed. Those who did see them regarded them as patronizing and divisive.
But that’s off track, there was no illusion for safety during the blitz, people sent their children away from the cities in hopes of keeping them safe. The bombing continued, nothing gave the illusion of safety during that time. In fact you could say it was the war that brought even more freedom to Britten. It forced women to work, liberating them, causing a sexual revolution, and while some freedoms were curtailed like travel, I would contend to it was more to save fuel than restrict movement. Now that was the result of a war that went on for years and bombing that went on for months and after it was over the restrictions were lifted. Now compare that to acts of terror in the US, 9/11 cause ALL air traffic to stop for days. Now, you are searched before you board a plane, you are forced to ID yourself, even though the courts have ruled the TSA must allow you to fly without and ID (9th Circuit Case of John Gilmore) the TSA will make you just through many hoops and odds are you will not be allowed to board. So on one hand you have a war with active bombing and limited travel restriction, mainly to save fuel, vs what we are going though with the TSA with no end in sight. So we are no more safe than before, but people feel better, we allow ourselves to be search, our child to be touched in ways that if you or I did it we’d be in jail. All for an illusion.
“I don't question you honesty, but I was unable to find some of the sources you mentioned…”
pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
The Gallup results are found in Who Speaks for Islam? written by John L. Esposito.
and an extra one
cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/
“Yet in all religions it is also emphasized that the morals that apply to god do not apply to people….”
But even in the Torah you see god commanding murder. That is the followers of god are told by god to kill. So god says thou shall not kill, but goes on to say, by the way kill these people.
“I'm not going to copy-paste my whole argument again.."
The legal definition is more important, in my opinion, because those are the law and rules you live under. I don’t live under the rules of Japan, or Mexico, and as an American, even if I moved to Japan or Mexico I’m still under the rules that govern Americans, as well as the local rules. For example in some countries a person could legally have sex with very young people, even though age of consent is very low and that person isn’t breaking local law, they still could be guilty of a crime in America. Now if I want to become Japanese or Mexican, I could change my citizenship and legally become Japanese or Mexican and then be subject to their rules and laws, even when I visit another country. Now if I suddenly found myself a citizen of Japan, I could in theory be found guilty of a crime in the US that isn’t a crime in the US but is a crime in Japan. It’s all about who controls you and not what you feel. (That whole control thing again.)
“Ok, that's very different. I'm talking about something saying you have to be/should be actively nice.”
Not really, just because you probably won’t go to jail for breaking a religious law that says you have to be nice it’s still control just like the law is control.
“A pretty terribly written guidebook, that's for sure!...”
To use your guide book example, if you give the bad guidebook to a thousand people how many are going to have a good results compared to people with the good guidebook?
Basically what you’re saying is the book and the words that are the foundation of religion don’t matter. Then why have religion at all?
Before I forget, thank you for being civil. too often people start tossing insults and won't hear or respond to what the other person is saying, its refreshing to talk to someone, who even if they disagree with me who is willing to listen. Thank you.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
(Sorry about the long response time; the max word count literally had to be changed to fit this in. It was actually ready on Thursday, but then my computer’s power supply died and the new one didn’t arrive until today.)
(Brace yourself, this is a long one.)
Thank you for being civil as well! I think we both find that tossing insults leads to a short, ineffective, unproductive argument (even if it is entertaining). At this point, though, I think we've gotten so off topic that it's more of a generalized discussion than an argument.
"Many laws do depends entirely on the plasticity society, we see a bad law and we change it."
Just out of curiosity, if you could pick one law, any law in the US (federal, state, or local) and change it, what would you change and why?
" But, I don’t see it as an exception, but as an extension of self-control."
I see it not as an extension of self-control, but rather acknowledgement of a lack of self-control. If you and I agree not to go onto each other's property, and we have the self-control to actually live up to that, then there's no need for a law, is there? Laws (in theory) take what society deems "good" and enforces it for all of those who lack the self-control (or lack the care) to actually abide by said general consensus.
"we rely on self-control of the citizen to obey what we as a society have voted on"
No, we don't. Again, self-control would make laws redundant. We rely on enforcement of laws, on coercion against citizens by using an unpleasant punishment, to make citizens obey what we have voted on. Don't forget about the above quote of yours yet; I'll bring it up again in a second.
"'The “problem” is we rely on others to enforce those rules"
I guess we theoretically could enforce the rules ourselves, as a people, but that's even worse. Historically, unregulated mob mentality and vigilante action has not been a just method of enforcement. Besides, ain't nobody got time for that anyway.
Someone needs to enforce the rules, don't they? Even libertarians (and I'm assuming you are one) agree that the government must at least provide some form of police force and justice system.
"which in turn gives them power over others, which in turn lead to abuse, and that makes control over others bad."
Even though I don't totally disagree with you, I should acknowledge that this is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
"We’ve seen it in all societies, it may be a survival characteristic in humans, to use whatever advantage we have to help ourselves and the ones we care for"
And you are completely right. It takes a high amount of self-control to resist those urges. Which is actually an argument for control, not against it.
My favorite Men in Black quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
A similar idea is reflected in many of the federalist papers: you can't trust the people. I've been reading A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn (which is an amazing read, if you're interested). He makes the argument that the US government is intentionally an oligarchy/meritocracy, to defend the people from their own rash judgment decisions. That's why, when you talk about the law preventing me from going on to your property, odds are neither of us actually voted for it. We voted for some guy who voted for it. In the US, we voluntarily yield control over ourselves. Direct democracy is irrational and inconvenient; in a democratic republican system, control is not only integral, it is an accepted and encouraged part of the system (this is especially applicable because, let's be honest, only the rich or uber-smart have a serious chance of gaining power in government; there's never any real representation of the people on anything above a local level).
"As to why Christians don’t keep kosher, that’s easy, it was a quick way to grow a religion"
It most definitely was! I don't even remember where I was going with that...something about ignoring the rules? Oh yeah. Just like the Christians did, you can ignore the rules.
"It also goes to prove how religious people are good at picking and choosing what laws they will and will not follow."
...which helps my argument more than yours. If religious people can pick and choose, then we can't say that bad laws within religious texts are applicable, because so few actually "choose" them.
"So join or die doesn’t carry any weight?"
Actually, not that much, no.
One of my favorite bits from comedian Eddie Izzard:
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."
"Very well! Give him cake!"
"Oh, thanks very much. It's very nice."
"You! Cake or death?"
“Uh, cake for me, too, please."
"Very well! Give him cake, too! We're gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?"
What's the point? Punishment for not doing something people are willingly doing anyway is hardly punishment at all. Yes, it is unjust, but you have to weigh the impacts. Let's use the US as an example. Let's say Jose Francia came back from the grave and became US dictator. He institutes a law that say, "you must have some sort of religion, or you will die." Ok, that stinks. But according to a Pew research study, that would only really apply to 20% of Americans. So you can't weigh that impact as affecting all Americans, only the ones that wouldn't have a faith anyway.
(pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/)
Anyway I found this source that is probably not that reliable, but ehh, whatever: (indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/)
It seems like that very few countries actually have an institutionalized death penalty for religious dissension (I really couldn't find any). Discrimination? Oh sure, but in those countries, like Burma/Myanmar (at the top) that only applies to a small amount of the people anyway. For most anti-religious laws? It actually seems to be against religion in general, ironically for the threat it poses to maintaining control (North Korea, China, to some extent Uzbekistan, etc).
So do these laws have an impact? Yes. A large one? Umm, we'll say yes. But can you outweigh my arguments by using these oppressive religious laws? Good luck.
"If religion was good why do they need to force people to join?"
Well, in the countries you talk about, the people affected by oppressive laws are rarely atheists. They just have different religions. So they weren't forced to join religion in general; in fact they chose religion despite the fact that they would face discrimination.
And as I said before, why do countries do this? It's a control thing, but it has to do with the country, not the religion. Monocultures are easier to control, so it is in the best interest of an oppressive government to eliminate cultural dissent. Again, nothing to do with the religion itself.
"The US is an acceptable society on the whole"
Despite the total lack of democracy inherent in the system? The fact that the structure of our society hinges upon the sacrifice of rights? Ok...
"Yes, we need rules, but those rules have to solve a problem. We have too many people trying to micromanage everyone else. "
Then you are a libertarian. Good; libertarians earn more of my respect than any other conservative group.
"Basically, if what you’re doing doesn’t directly affect someone else, why can’t you do it?"
And that's exactly why they earn my respect.
However, there is one key word there, and I think this is the thing that makes me disagree. The word "direct." Let's say I buy a gun. The I start shooting it like crazy, spinning around and laughing maniacally in the middle of the street. Let's say that, by some fluke, nobody was hit, and no property was damaged. I have directly impacted no-one. Yet what I did should obviously be made illegal.
That's because there's such a thing as indirect impact, and we can't pretend as if it doesn't exist.
I'm going quote-crazy today, so here's a bit from comic Jim Jeffries (sorry in advance for the language):
" ‘Why should I have my guns taken off me? I’ve done nothing wrong.’ Look, I agree with you, if you’re a responsible gun owner and you don’t f*** around with them then you should be allowed your guns. You really should. But that’s not how society works. We have to play to the 1% that are such f***wits they ruin it for the rest of us. We have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society f***ing moving, right? I take drugs like a f***ing champion. We should all be allowing to take f***ing drugs. But we can’t, can we? Because Sarah took drugs and she stabbed her ***ing kids. Oh thanks Sarah! You f***ed it up for everyone!”"
Absolute freedom gets abused. That's why we have laws that curtail maximum freedom. Because freedom is power, and just as a government official can misuse it, so can an individual.
Pick your poison.
Actually, my main gripe with libertarian philosophy is that it assumes that if government takes more of a back seat nothing else will step in to control our lives. Wrong. When there are opportunities for control, they will be seized. If the government doesn't control us, corporations will. Employers will. Even unions will. This is what we saw during the industrial revolution in the US, and it was ugly.
Now, in the ideal libertarian world, I don't think we'd regress to that point. But we do have to acknowledge that the government is one of only a few things holding back the absolute power of the rich (both individuals and organizations). Sans government, the people don't magically regain control. No, now the rich, now the corporations can influence us through deregulated advertising and rip us off with deregulated products. This is actually the biggest problem I have with America right now. Not that being rich is inherently bad, keep your money for all I care, just that we shouldn't have a society in which regulations are scant enough so that people can get away with limitlessly large anonymous donations to candidates for office. Money that is used to create adds, schedule appearances, money that is used to control public opinion...without the public even knowing they're being controlled. This problem leads to the abuses of power you so fear; positions reserved for representatives of the people are now taken by representatives for the upper class of people and businesses. And while the people think they're being represented, they're being jipped out of the small amount of democratic power they have in society. (BTW, I don't endorse Bernie Sanders).
"The short answer is yes, society itself is inherently bad."
What's the long answer (only if you have time)?
"Some are very well run, but most end up with those in power abusing those who aren’t."
I should point out, the fact that you acknowledge that "some are very well run" kind of refutes the idea that society is "inherently" bad. Inherently with exceptions is an oxymoron.
"And time and time again those who are given that power abuse it."
And time and time again they also don't. Time and time again they use taxpayer money to build roads and schools.
Look, here's the ultimate question to pose to a libertarian, that I think presses the core philosophy. We agree that government is based off of coercion. It coerces you to both not kill someone and pay your taxes. The question is, do you believe that this coercion (a word you can, here, substitute with "control") is unjustified even if it is used to provide an unarguable benefit to all?
"Take the TSA, they really isn’t doing that good of a job, given that the security measure we had in place before 9/11 were adequate."
They're doing a great job! Well, not at security, they're awful at that, but that's not their purpose. Their purpose is security theater, make people feel safe. If people don't feel safe around planes, then they won't fly on planes. A major industry is damaged, travel becomes more inconvenient for all, disrupting the flow of travel for both pleasure and, more importantly, for business. All surrounding a method of travel that is probably the safest out there.
The secuity theater isn't abusive. People want to feel safe. People are willing to sacrifice some of their time, and are willing to have someone touch them (which, let's be honest, is "technically" an infringement of rights, but almost no-one actually cares) to feel safe. So even if it were up to me, a person who knows the TSA does nothing for security, I still wouldn't abolish it. It provides a valuable intangible benefit.
"I read the bible cover to cover and studied it."
Your ability to focus is incredible, to read a long, badly written, painfully boring book like that.
"(odds are I probably won’t finish it)"
God, I don't expect you to. Your near superhuman levels of focus aren't quite superhuman yet.
"Once I added it all up, I realized that religion was about power over others nothing more, nothing less."
...yet you yourself admitted that they hadn't even read the dang book. Therefore, it has no direct power over them. If they think god has a plan for amputees, then who cares? If anything, that type of attitude can help an amputee. It's better to think "god has a plan for why I lost my leg" then to think "well, this is some terrible luck." This mindset can help a person overcome and accept their situation, and can help them look for the bright side, increasing their quality of life.
"Yes, it is harder for some people than others, but it can and has been done."
The very nature of the fact that it something is made harder for some then for others is control. Let's agree that a law against murder is a form of control. Person A lives in a society with this law. Person B lives in a society without. Both Person A and Person B can kill someone, but because of the control, it is harder for Person A to actually complete murder. Control reduces the probability that X will happen. So while I agree with you that people can always change, that doesn't negate the fact that the discrepancies between how easy it is for people to change is still technically a control.
"And we have shown that very young children are taught how to have empathy for others."
I agree, but I'm not sure that this is a refutation. This also seems to work for my side. A young child can be taught something...but that doesn't mean they chose to be taught that thing. This is still an external force exerting change outside of the will of the person themself.
"But, I contend, that much more crime is committed because it’s easier than working."
When you talk about crime for money, I don't think that that contradicts me. Money is a need like anything else. Want for comfortable life, even, can be considered a need. However, so reasonable person believes that crime is actually easier than working. Because in addition to actually making your money, you also have to work at, and worry about, getting caught. Which many (possibly most) people do anyway. Jail is not easier than working.
A man came and spoke at our synagogue recently, who had been homeless for upwards of a decade. He's clean now, but he'd been on drugs for more than two decades. He told us that he can't deny that drug dealers made a lot of money, so if you want to be a drug dealer, I'm not going to lie and tell you it won't be profitable. But he also said that, of all of the drug dealers he's known in his life, only one of them lived to retirement age. The rest are in jail on lengthy sentences, or were killed.
Most people understand that, realistically, crime doesn't pay.
But then why do some people do it? Well, in the short term, it is definitely easier than working. In the short term. Long-term thought is not a typical criminal trait.
So, you're right, to criminals, crime is perceived as easier than working.
So what creates this mindset? Obviously it's not something that common people abide by.
Long-term thought is something that probably has some genetic roots, but is also a learned skill. A childhood with bad education, or with lack of emphasis on education, or where long-term thought and planning are not present in the household, can prevent this skill from being learned.
In a related train of thought, living an early life surrounded by crime can establish crime as a legitimate path, even an expected one. If you do not know how to work legitimately, either because you were raised surrounded by crime or because you've only ever done crime (or both), then you simply do not have the mindset necessary to dedicate yourself to actual work.
Control of your mind from outside forces.
Can this be overcome? Yes, of course. That homeless man I mentioned is doing well now, and is raising a family. Two online friend of mine are ex-cons, and have turned over a new leaf. But the brother of a close family friend is still living in his car, even after being given an education, and even a house, and regressing back to crime time and time again, despite expressing desire to leave his life of crime. It's too hard for him.
He has a need. He needs to commit crime, because he does not know any other life, and cannot really envision a path to a better life for himself. My guess is that a similar thing applies to your cousin.
“But religion is based on a book, or writing, to say it’s just a book isn’t really genuine...”
Of course I have no idea who wrote the Torah. All I know is that it wasn’t written by any one person. In fact, looking at the Torah from a historical perspective is very interesting. As the name of God changes, his behaviour changes as well, reflecting the perception of god in different cultures that the Torah was written in over time. Ex: the Yahweh god is by far a more wrathful and impulsive god than the other versions.
Anyway off topic.
“When you say I’m Jewish, are you not saying this is the book that I follow?”
I am, but that is not all I am saying. I would say that’s not even 5% of it. You can read the entire Torah, you can memorize it, and you’ll still be utterly clueless about Judaism.
“a religion really doesn’t need a person to follow.”
I agree, but that wasn’t my point. Religion doesn’t need a person to follow, it needs a following. Without a following, every religious text is just some mildly interesting compendium of anonymously written folktales. It’s just some guy sitting alone in his basement chanting in an ancient language. In order to have a religion, you must have, well, the religious.
“So is Jesus or Muhammad really necessary, given they probably didn’t write or say much of what was written down. Are not their followers just following a book?”
My guess is that they wrote or said almost none of what was written down. But their followers aren’t just following a book. They are following a way of life, a way of thinking, and a way of community. You cannot reduce the religion to the book alone.
Let me give you a dumb and stereotypical example. Bagels. Jews love bagels. I know, it’s a stereotype, but it’s true. Bagels are not in the Torah, yet they are a part of the Jewish way of life. Diet, of course, is a part of culture and a part of a way of life. The chair lifting at Bar-Mitzvahs? Not in the Torah, but still a part of the Jewish way of life, a tradition. Now, I know this example has nothing to do with what I just mentioned, community, a way of thinking, etc., but it illustrates that most of a religion actually has nothing to do with the book, and everything to do with the culture. The book is the seed. Religion is the tree. To say the tree is the same as the seed is absurd.
"So we are no more safe than before, but people feel better, we allow ourselves to be search, our child to be touched in ways that if you or I did it we’d be in jail."
So I concede the "keep calm" example. You demolished it. But clearly you get the idea I was getting at. Now the reason I took the above quote from your passage is because you yourself admit the advantage. Anyway I've already gone over this.
In regards to that Pew study...
Thanks for giving me the study itself. So many people give me some BS website and then I have to find the root source in my own. You saved me some time there, and I appreciate it.
So, according to these findings, in not a single country looked at can extremism be considered anywhere near the majority. You’re right; in many places support or perception of justification for extremism is disturbingly high, but that’s not necessarily significant for two reasons.
You already said it. Theoretical support of extremism means nothing. Action is what counts. What really matters is, how many actively militant, either violently or otherwise, Muslims are out there? This study does not touch on that.
Let’s look at the example of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group. Yet it was democratically elected by the people of Gaza. Does that make the people of Gaza evil terrorists and extremists? No. It makes them desperate. People turn to extremism out of desperation, they put their faith in violent extremist groups when their governments have failed them, and when the world has failed them. This doesn’t just apply to Islam. This applies to any unstable country. Violent usurpations arise to fill structural voids in people’s lives, to unite them behind blood when they no longer have the strength or will to unite behind anything else.
I think it’s also worth mentioning, this study is about a decade out of date. That doesn’t invalidate it, but remember that tensions between the US/NATO and the Middle East/Muslims were quite a bit higher back then (you know why). This applies to the other study you mentioned as well.
I couldn’t find the study itself (well, I found something that seemed like it, but it didn’t seem much like an official report, considering it lacked methodology and even what questions were asked), but I did find this paper evaluating the methods and validity of similar studies (including this study).
peacepolls.org/peacepolls/documents/001589.pdf
It shows two NOP polls in 2006. They were both telephone surveys with no general sample against which to compare the responses. They both had under 1000 respondents.
This is a direct quote from the paper, citing a study by Blick, Choudhury and Weir, 2006, that gives an example of a criticism of a NOP poll.
“The extent to which framing can affect outcome is best seen in a question posed in the 2006 NOP/Channel 4 poll. The headline report was that 24 per cent of Muslims see the UK as ‘their country’. However, the actual question posed, ‘When you see the British 7 ICM Poll, June 2006. 10 flag do you feel “that’s my country” or “that’s their country”?’ Thus the replies reflected ambivalence toward the union flag rather than the UK. By contrast, 88 per cent of Muslims agreed with the statement, ‘when a British team does well in international competitions, such as sporting events, I feel proud’. The figure for all people in the UK was 90 per cent; and as many non-Muslims and Muslims respondents, 7 per cent of each group, disagreed.”
“But even in the Torah you see god commanding murder. That is the followers of god are told by god to kill. So god says thou shall not kill, but goes on to say, by the way kill these people.”
So, one, I’ve already mentioned that most religions believe that god operates by different moral rules. Two, you’re right in that god technically orders killing, even genocide, all the time. But remember what I’ve been saying? These laws are ignored. They put no weight on your side, because they are not acted upon. Because they’re stupid laws. Just like no-one pays any attention to the laws that talk about what types of threads you can and cannot mix.
“The legal definition is more important, in my opinion, because those are the law and rules you live under.”
Your culture dictates your way of life far more than the laws of your society do. This is even legally recognized in the US. I’m underage (a high school student, actually; I feel safe enough telling you now), yet I can drink for religious purposes...completely legally.
“Now if I suddenly found myself a citizen of Japan, I could in theory be found guilty of a crime in the US that isn’t a crime in the US but is a crime in Japan.”
True, but what defines a culture is not what crimes you can and cannot commit. That idea is absurd. I think we can both agree on that.
“It’s all about who controls you and not what you feel.”
I disagree. If the laws in this country say I cannot be Jewish, am I now magically not Jewish, even though those who technically control me say that I am not? It is all about identity, because identity has significance to the individual, while legal titles are inherently arbitrary to the individual unless tied to identity.
Legality is arbitrary. Identity is not. Way of life is not. Let’s compare this to education. I know an 18 year old who graduated from high-school. I know a 17 year old who did not, because he went straight to MIT out of his junior year (true story). So, technically, from a “legal” perspective, this dumb 18 year old with straight Cs is more educated than Mr. MIT, because he has an extra piece of paper that says he graduated from high school while right now Mr. MIT has nothing.
You judge education by, well, how much someone is educated. A piece of paper can be representative of that, but it is not indicative of that.
Similarly, you judge cultural identity by, well, identity. A piece of paper can be representative of that, but it is not indicative of that.
“To use your guide book example, if you give the bad guidebook to a thousand people how many are going to have a good results compared to people with the good guidebook?”
And if you give the bad guidebook to a thousand people and a good guidebook to no-one, than how many are going to have a good results compared to people with the good guidebook?
Remember, the best guide book in the world is useless without someone to read it. Religious texts are flawed, but at least there are people who use (some of) what they say.
“Basically what you’re saying is the book and the words that are the foundation of religion don’t matter. Then why have religion at all?”
Let’s say that I am an architectural critic, and I am judging a building. I will judge it by its design, its utility, its aesthetics. But I will not judge it by its foundation. So why do you need the foundation at all? The answer should be obvious.
As usual, I look forward to your response. :)
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
I enjoyed the read.
I was going to try and answer point by point but I think it would really get us nowhere, so I’ll try and be a little more general and try and answer your questions that way. If you want I can go back and answer back point by point if you wish just let me know.
You asked if I could change one law, but are many laws in the US that I would change; in a lot of cases it would be to simplify them. But what we need is a true justice system, something we don’t currently have. Let’s take a theoretical case, the police break into a home without a warrant and have clearly broken the law, they find illegal activity (it doesn’t what activity just that it’s illegal). In our current justice system the people would basically walk free, and odds are the police might maybe get a slap on the wrist and the taxpayer, not the police, would pay the people off. If we had a true justice system both parties would both be found guilty. After all if we are after true justice, the fact the police broke the law doesn’t negate the fact the other person was also breaking the law.
Now I’m not silly enough to even hope a system like this would be setup, after all even the courts know that police abuse their power, and will kick out cases where the police have abused their power. But the police also know that the odds are they will have few if any consequences for breaking the laws. And I don’t see how you can call abuse of power a logical fallacy; police have for as long as we’ve had police have abused their power. Give a family member a break, turned a blind eye to certain crimes, against certain people. I have yet to meet an officer who hasn’t abused their position in some manner. One Massachusetts police department favored applicants who state they would not arrest colleagues or family for drunk driving as they “know discretion”
bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/14/methuen-police-gave-p...YDzK/story.html#
Now expand that to the whole government and it doesn’t take much to see how our government abuses their power, and take that a step back and see how businesses abuse their power etc all the way down to the individual.
Now onto the TSA where you accept that you have the illusion of safety in exchange for a technical violation of your rights.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin (the real quote BTW)
One by one, people are asked to give up the liberties for an illusion of safety, and in the end they are neither safe nor have they any liberty. How far are you willing to go for the illusion safety, give your name, address, SSN number a week in advance so the police can do a background check on you? Strip and fly naked? Be probed? How much liberty are you willing to give up, how much power are you going to give others over you, all for an illusion?
Now I’ve never said we shouldn’t have laws or that we don’t need people to enforce them, because in all the but smallest of societies (where they can be self-policing the Amish for example shun people who break the rules, that applies societal pressure on them to conform or leave) need people to enforce the rules. I have said we need checks and balances for those who we give power too.
As far as the 1% go why should your freedom be curtailed because someone broke a law? If, as in your example with drugs, if you agree that as an adult you should be able to use whatever drug you choose, why should that be restricted if someone on drugs happen to harm someone else. Would it not be better to hold that person responsible for their actions? BTW I’m in favor of letting you decided what drugs to use but, and this is where I lose most liberals, you can’t used diminished capacity as a defense, after all you don’t take a drug thinking it will do nothing to you. That includes all drugs alcohol included.
Now I can only comment on the criminals I’ve had contact with, and I’m not saying someone who commits a crime might not have a good reason to do so. A shoplifter who steals food, for example, might be doing so to feed themselves and children, even though it’s against the laws. I haven’t run into those types of criminals. The ones I have run into are doing it for the money. What they are using the money for, in most cases I don’t know.
While society makes laws, and I still contend most people have the self-control to follow them, even those we didn’t directly vote for, after all getting 200,000,000 people to vote for or against a law would be cumbersome at best.
But, if we only followed the law because we would be punished, why aren’t more people breaking the laws when the police aren’t around?
Without an agreement which is what a law basically is, there is no need for self control. Without the rule of law, our agreement with each other, you could do anything you want without any ramifications. As a society we say you can’t drive over 25 mph in the city and if you do you pay a fine for driving dangerously. Yes some people will break the law, maybe they disagree with it, maybe they don’t care, but as a society these are the rules we want. Now if we didn’t have this agreement you could drive 100 mph in the city and nobody could do anything about it. You will notice most people will follow the rule, even when the police aren’t there, that is they have the self control to follow the rules.
We do have an indirect impact, yes I agree there is such a thing as indirect impact, but in your gun example there is direct impact on others. In the gun case, you are causing people to take cover, hide, etc. as they must take other precautions to stop you from harming them. While in the 100 mph in the city example, there is less direct impact and more indirect impact.
Now I know the world isn’t black and white, and anyone who see the world that way are silly at best. (I tend to think only the truly evil see the world as black and white.) There are shades of evil. Can you say a shoplifter who is stealing food to feed themselves and their family is evil? They did break the law, they did deprive someone else, but are they evil? That’s the gray I’m talking about. As a society we say stealing is bad, yet to keep someone from dying wouldn’t you break the law and steal? I hope most people would, yet I know had I done so I would have to pay society back somehow.
“My favorite Men in Black quote: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."”
OK I said I wasn’t going to go point by point but I couldn’t let this one pass.
What’s funny is that quote is wrong when it said 500 years ago everybody knew the Earth was flat most people already knew the world was round 500 years ago, and there were people 1,500 years ago who didn’t think the earth was the center of the universe, but that’s for another time. And yes I get the point.
I am a conservative, a true conservative that is. There are many “conservatives” that are far from it. A true conservative want the smallest government possible, with as much freedom as possible. And a government that is as close to the people as possible. A conservative wants to strictly limiting the power of government to give people as much freedom as possible all within the framework of the Constitution. There are many who claim to be conservative (or liberal, libertarian for that matter), who just want power over others, and they also tend to the same people who lack self control, and go on to abuse their power after they get it. Which is why we need good check and balances. Just because a HOA happens to be well run, or taxes go to build school, roads, and the people in charge don’t abuse their power, might very well mean they weren’t given the chance. IF the check and balances are in place and working the ability of people to abuse their power is limited. Just because you’ve kept the abuse in check doesn’t mean society is good, it means you’ve keep the abuse in check.
We could go around and around with religion, you see the good parts ignore the bad parts as most people do. While I see the bad parts and see that people can and do follow the bad parts and feel no guilt or shame because their religion says not only should they do it but they are to be rewarded because they do it.
Just so you know it took a year of reading to finish the bible, it was part of a bible study group back when I went to church. Yes I used to attend a church and that where I started to question religion.
Now the longer answer on society.
Yes, I think society is inherently evil. As a society we have two basic choices we can have laws and rules that we expect people to follow and have people to enforce them, or have no rules at all. Now both choices are evil, but the lesser of the two evils is laws and rules with people to enforce them. But even being the lesser of two evils, it is still evil. And thus we need to keep society in check. In the US we have the Constitution to limit government’s power (in this case I contend government and our society are the same). We setup checks and balances and when properly implemented limit the amount of harm society can inflict on a person, but it still inflicts harm. After all if you have to give something up, even if you agree to it, you have suffered some harm. Taxes for example, if you agree we need a library, and that everyone should chip in and pay for it with a tax, that loss of income still causes some harm, even if you might get some benefit from it. Given that uncheck power leads to abuse (there may be cases where this hasn’t happened but I have yet to find it) and that the checks on such power may not be adequate, we also are charged with watching those in charge. Basically it comes down to if you trust people as a whole to do the “right” thing or not. In my experience I have found that generally people will do what is best for them. Now I’m not saying all people are bad, nor am I saying all people are selfish. I hold out hope that those in power will do the right thing, but as we’ve seen before and will again they will abuse their power, over and over again. I can point to many scandals in just about any government (there may be a government without any problems of abuse but I have yet to find one). I know PEOPLE, who do the right thing, who are selfless, who give their time. I for example train people to defend themselves. I receive no money; in fact it costs me money to conduct the training. And if someone does wish to pay me I have them donate the money to a women’s shelter. The person who instructed me also does the same thing, but that is a person not society.
Yes, I know when you read this you can point and say you contradicted yourself here and here, but like all people I’m not black and white, but some shade of gray. I can say on one hand you should have all the freedom you want while on the other hand say that’s not safe and there should be a law. Even if said action isn’t something I’d ever do and thus the law would never effect me. That called being human, and while I hope people do the right thing I don’t expect society will do so, even though it should.
Hopefully that will answer many of your questions. And I hope it didn’t ramble on too much.
And since you did a movie quote here’s two that should sum up what I've said.
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..” Spock.
“Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Kirk.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
(Hi! Sorry it took me so long to respond. I’m running shorter and shorter on time, so this will be my last response. Please feel free to do another response after this one; I promise you I will read it. Thank you for the in-depth, intelligent discussion. I appreciate your civility and the constant high level to which you thought out your responses.)
“ If we had a true justice system both parties would both be found guilty. After all if we are after true justice, the fact the police broke the law doesn’t negate the fact the other person was also breaking the law.”
Not sure if I agree with you there. I’m not sure that I disagree either, but just for the sake of discussion, I’ll take the opposing side. The idea behind the justice system working in this way is to sort of keep a moral high ground, to not sink to the levels of criminals to fight criminal behaviour. We don’t want a sort of Stalin/Hitler system, where the police can do whatever, whenever. Now I know that’s not a fair comparison; in your ideal world the police wouldn’t be brutalizing innocents. But I think that a better example is Porfirio Diaz, dictator of Mexico from 1876-1911 (if I recall correctly). He had this system called “bread or the stick”, where he set up a police force called the federales that went around and not only beat criminals, but beat the police that allowed crime to happen. Well...it worked. Mexico was stabilized; many (although, to be fair, not all) historians agree that crime fell dramatically. But at what cost? Diaz was a tyrant. His people lived in constant fear. His police force (which some historians believe was literally made up of hired bandits and gangsters!) technically created a more just society in which less crime occurred. But that’s just because they themselves became the criminals.
Now I know that’s not a fair comparison either. In your ideal world, the police would still be subject to discipline. But the idea that we try to uphold with this type of justice system is that justice accomplished through crime is not justice at all, but...well...crime. We don’t want our police force to be criminals. We want them to retain a higher position in the community, to keep the trust of the community that is so essential to policing (and which is so frequently lost in the modern day). Now, again, the police would still be punished for action along these lines. But by allowing illegally made arrests or illegally gathered evidence to stay legitimate, we legitimize the criminal act that brought about the “justice.” The police who infringe people’s rights would not be criminals; they’d be martyrs. In isolation, this isn’t bad. Think about it: if you could catch a murderer, but have to go to jail for a few months, or get your job suspended, for doing it, would you? I would. My sense of justice would prevail. I would catch the murderer, take my punishment, and be praised by friends and family for making such a selfless contribution to society. In isolation, this is great. But what happens when all the police start throwing the laws to the wind, prioritizing their own morals and sense of justice over that of society? Bad things. Innocents get captured by accident. Property is destroyed by accident. The police are still punished, yes, but their stories of failure likely will not overshadow that stories of success from compatriots.
This legitimization of criminal practice to combat criminal practice can and will lead to the infringement of the rights of innocents, often in the form of wrongful and illegal arrest without sufficient evidence. Would crime drop? You bet. Would more “justice” be served? Probably. But is it worth infringing the rights of innocents to catch a criminal? Is it better to imprison three to capture one? Society’s morals tend to say no, and because of that, we have to have strict rules in place to make sure the police cannot possibly have the motivation to illegally go after people, even if it means some criminals walk free.
“after all even the courts know that police abuse their power, and will kick out cases where the police have abused their power. “
True.
“And I don’t see how you can call abuse of power a logical fallacy”
I wasn’t calling abuse of power a logical fallacy. I was calling the idea that power inherently must be abused a logical fallacy.
“police have for as long as we’ve had police have abused their power.”
Well, some police have, but most police haven’t. Remember, “police” as a whole is not a single body, but, as anything else, an organization of individuals. I have a hard time believing that every policeman or woman will engage in some kind of abuse of the power that they’ve been given. Have things gotten worse? Yes, but keep in mind that we never hear “policeman does duty for 25 years; retires without incident” in the news. We can say that the Nazis used the power to abuse people, but then again, Schindler used his position of power to help people escape that abuse.
Is every manager abusive to their employees? No. Is every big sibling abusive to their little sibling? No. Is every parent abusive to their child? No. Heck, is every politician abusive to the people? No.
Yes, as long as we have had power, people have abused their power. This includes the police. But being in a position of power does not inherently lead to abuse.
Can it lead to abuse? Yes. Does it? Yes. In fact if you said that every person in a position of power abuses their power at least one time, then I would agree with you. But that’s not the same thing as total abuse of power.
“Now expand that to the whole government and it doesn’t take much to see how our government abuses their power, and take that a step back and see how businesses abuse their power etc all the way down to the individual.”
Ok. Yes? Let’s say you’re right, (which you very well could be), that all power is abused. What are we supposed to make of this observation? Pull back on the government? Well, removing government’s power simply gives more power to other places. 1) The people. 2) The businesses. 3) Etc. And if you abide by this assumption that more power inherently equals more abuse, than these groups are just as likely to abuse their newfound power as the government is. Now you’re just picking who you’re abused by, and not providing solvency for abuse in general. You’re not solving for control or abuse; you’re simply replacing one actor with another.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin (the real quote BTW)”
This applies to so-called “essential” liberty.” Is “not being poked when I want to get somewhere by air rather than land” an “essential liberty”? You could slippery-slope it, and say that if we give this up, what comes next? But then you’d be slippery sloping it.
I could also spend about 400 words here trying to discredit Franklin as a glib, manipulative elitist (along with most of our “founding fathers”), but I don’t have the time nor the patience necessary to do so (especially because that would start another debate tangent, and as this is my last response, I don’t want to do that).
“How far are you willing to go for the illusion safety”
Oh wait. You just slippery-sloped it.
I shouldn’t have to say anything more, but I will. You are clearly conservative. I am not anti-conservative; I believe that much of what conservatives say makes a lot of sense.
But there is one manner of rhetoric that conservatives use constantly. Former congressman Doug Ose came and spoke and my school a few days ago (surprise! I’m a high school student.). He used it. You use it constantly, even though the vast, vast majority of what you say (in my view) is substantive and valid enough without it. Carly Fiorina used it BIG TIME in the last debate, when she talked about “this is how socialism starts.”
It’s the slippery slope logical fallacy. And it makes most conservatives immediately look incompetent in the eyes of most anyone who's at least a little bit educated in debate. There’s a reason that one, and only one, debater on my fairly large debate team is conservative. Let’s look at Carly Fiorina. What? WHAT? That’s how socialism starts? Well, while we’re at it, socialism actually starts when you see people ask for more equality. So, I guess, if we see anyone asking for equality, I guess we’re going to end up socialist. Socialism also starts from worker unrest. So, I guess if we have any workers on strike, we’re going to end up socialist. You know, socialism also resulted from having strong leaders with good speaking voices. So I guess if any of our leaders have good speaking voices, that means we’re going to end up socialist, because “that’s how socialism starts.”
You get the idea. I’m assuming you know what slippery-slope is, and why it’s ridiculous to use. If not, look it up; most explanations only take a few seconds.
Just because a could lead to b, doesn’t mean that it will. In fact, in most cases, it almost definitely will not.
Giving up one liberty doesn’t mean the rest suddenly vanish.
“Would it not be better to hold that person responsible for their actions?”
It definitely would be, but then again, by making it illegal, we could try to prevent said actions in the first place. If you do take drugs, sure, you’ll probably be fine. But then again, you could run up and stab me. Why should my freedom to, well, not be stabbed be put at risk by your freedom to use drugs?
We have to cater to that 1%, because the violation of an innocent’s rights in those 1% of cases is so extreme that it balances it the relatively minor infringement of rights in the other 99%. Let’s say drinking and driving is allowed. Ten people leave a bar, drunk. They all drive home. Nine reach home safely. One runs into Jane and kills her. By allowing the freedom of drunk driving to those nine people, who hurt no-one, one person is dead. We sacrificed the right to life of one person to preserve the right to drive while hammered of the others.
Not all freedoms are created equal. Is this trade worth it? No.
This is especially true for drugs, because not everyone reacts to drugs in the same way. Most people won’t become violent, yes, but some people will. And those people will infringe upon the freedoms of others to an extent sufficient so that the freedom to take the drug, on net, actually reduces the total number of “rights” preserved in a society. Yes, these people would still be punished. But punishment doesn’t undo the right infringement. Punishment won’t bring Jane back to life.
The purpose of law is not to punish people; we don’t work on some sort of satisfying eye-for-an-eye vendetta system. The purpose of law is to try to dissuade and prevent the harms from occurring in the first place. And if that means suspending lesser freedoms for all to defend greater freedoms for a few? So be it. (And don’t go and slippery-slope this!)
To be fair, I actually agree with you, to an extent. If a drug causes little to no violence or violent effects, then it should not be illegal. Marijuana? Let it be!
“you can’t used diminished capacity as a defense, after all you don’t take a drug thinking it will do nothing to you.”
You sort of...do.
destinationstorecovery.com/drugs-brain-cause-effect/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6536498
We both know about the “it won’t happen to me” mentality. It’s dumb, but it’s real.
“The ones I have run into are doing it for the money. What they are using the money for, in most cases I don’t know.”
Refer to my previous argument. Money is a necessity for life, and for comfortable life. Many criminals do not know how to get money without crime. Therefore, it still falls under the umbrella of necessity.
“But, if we only followed the law because we would be punished, why aren’t more people breaking the laws when the police aren’t around?”
Well, lots of people do. Ever jaywalked? I have. Ever jaywalked in front of a cop? Only in NYC…
But the police are never simply “not around.” “The police” as a concept are not just the people and squad cars dispatched by the force. The police is an always-watching mentality, the “we could get in trouble” idea that prevents little kids from leaving the school yard even though they could probably get away from it. It is a series of concepts that we are raised with, and therefore, that we are uncomfortable doing. It’s like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, squirming at things he would otherwise do because of association. There have been many opportunities when I could have taken something, snatched it right out of a store, but didn’t. I know that it, realistically, would hurt no-one, my tiny little theft of a shampoo bottle or something, but I don’t do it because I’ve been trained not to. Taking that thing from the store would fill me with guilt, guilt that has been placed by a society whose laws and morals have been beaten into my head so that even this innocent crime conjures up harsh negative feelings. When the police are not around, the mind and the conscience punish the average citizen. And the mind and conscience are molded by the laws and morals of a society. This is not self control, this is Alex jumping out of a window when he hears Beethoven.
That all sounds very dystopian, but it’s not. It’s necessary for society to function.
“You will notice most people will follow the rule, even when the police aren’t there, that is they have the self control to follow the rules.”
That’s because, if the police suddenly vanished, this Clockwork-Orange mentality remains. The better question is, what would happen 200 years after the police vanished? Would people still drive at 25 mph? Probably not; they haven’t been “Orange’d” to do it.
“As a society we say stealing is bad, yet to keep someone from dying wouldn’t you break the law and steal? I hope most people would, yet I know had I done so I would have to pay society back somehow.”
Wise words indeed!
“There are many “conservatives” that are far from it.”
Very true!
“Just because you’ve kept the abuse in check doesn’t mean society is good, it means you’ve keep the abuse in check.”
Already addressed this above. Power does not inherently lead to abuse. Frequently? Yes, it does, which is why I agree that we need checks and balances. But this assumption that power itself is abuse is not only wrong, it’s an incredibly cynical way to look at the world.
“But even being the lesser of two evils, it is still evil.”
Is it really now? Now here I guess we do into the definition of evil. Is something “evil” if it is the best possible, and only realistic, option? A rhetorical question, just something to think about.
“After all if you have to give something up, even if you agree to it, you have suffered some harm.”
No matter what, you always have to give something up. Society, no society. High taxes, low taxes. Everything hits a balance. If you pay low taxes, you pay in other ways. You pay by having a less steady future, where you cannot rely as easily on social security, medical care, or even the fact that you’ll have food if your finances take a turn for the worse. But don’t worry. “It won’t happen to me.”
Intangible costs, but the costs you pay are just as high without taxes as with.
“that loss of income still causes some harm, even if you might get some benefit from it.”
As can be said with...literally anything. Every aspect of life has the exact same effect. Everything you do has a harm and a benefit.
Ironically, the very attempts to minimize the harms have harm themselves. You cannot escape it.
“we also are charged with watching those in charge. “
Even though I disagree that power inherently leads to abuse, I do agree that checks and balances are necessary, and that we need to watch those in charge.
“In my experience I have found that generally people will do what is best for them.”
Which, ironically, is the exact opposite principle of what our government was founded on. Federalist papers, read ‘em over again.
“I can point to many scandals in just about any government (there may be a government without any problems of abuse but I have yet to find one).”
Ok…
“I know PEOPLE, who do the right thing, who are selfless, who give their time.”
And I think that, if you scrutinized these people with the same scrutiny you apply to governments, you’ll find that they all have problems too. That they are not pure. That they are not 100% good. There may be a person without any problems, but I am yet to find one. I am a good person. I have problems. You are a good person. You have problems. Government X is a has problems. Using the same logic we apply to people, this does not mean it is a bad government.
If I simply replace some words from your own words…
““I can point to many problems in just about any person (there may be a person without any problems but I have yet to find one)”
It is fallacious to look only at the bad in one thing and only at the good in another. It is especially fallacious to judge one (governments) only by the bad and the other (people) only by the good.
Therefore, you have, in this paragraph, accomplished nothing but point out that government is flawed, as everything and everyone is flawed. Which only makes sense, because governments are made up of people, people who don’t suddenly transform into good members of society into power-hungry abusive politicians as soon as they get a position of power.
Every government has flaws. Every government has abuses of power. But the bottom line is, despite this, most governments work. Again, no headlines saying “Argentina’s government exists without consequence for one more day.”
Even negating that people are as flawed as governments (if not more so; people don’t really check-and-balance themselves to, really, any extent), don’t forget those Federalists. Even with the best of intentions, “the people” can accidentally work against themselves.
“And if someone does wish to pay me I have them donate the money to a women’s shelter.”
Well, that’s very nice of you!
“The person who instructed me also does the same thing, but that is a person not society.”
And like society, whoever this person is is probably a flawed human being. And like society, that doesn’t make him bad.
...and I just read your concluding paragraph. Seems like I’m preaching to the choir; you probably know the flaws in humanity more than I do (considering, you know, age).
“Hopefully that will answer many of your questions. And I hope it didn’t ramble on too much.”
Answered all of ‘em, and not ramble-y in the least!
“And since you did a movie quote here’s two that should sum up what I've said.”
Well, I’ve always disagreed with that, but let’s be honest: you win on the sci-fi quotes!
Should you choose to give it, I look forward to reading your final response.
Thanks again for the conversation, and see you around OpiWiki!
-Noah
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
load further replies (1)
Load more (1) in reply to the opinion
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
@
click for template
OR
Share it:
Share this opinion via OpiWiki smartlink:
OR
Opinion's page
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Status:
Active
Replies:
16
Main replies:
2
subscribe
For new main reply notification
Voting
(275 votes)