@ dexter morgan

Actually I don't think anyone said Hitler was an atheist. As a Catholic though, he allowed Catholic priests an nuns to be among those killed in the concentration camps; so one might question his piety on that note alone. Regardless the simple fact that he claimed to be a Catholic does not mean that his motivations were religious (you said as much in your reply to Shardz).

If anything Fascism grew out of Social Darwinism and the influence of Nietzche's philosophies. While neither Darwin nor Nietzche would have approved of Hitler, Hitler certainly approved of and was influenced by them. Again the Jews were not being exterminated on religous grounds. One could not claim to have converted to escape the death camps. He was exterminating them as an race. That puts the atrocity secular rather than religious.

@ Crazy Anglican

Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to reject morality; those are some of my favourite parts of the bible. I'd rather have people coming to it on their own terms than having it dogmatised into them, though.

@ dexter morgan

I'm just saying there's an association, not causation, no.

Interesting choice of phrase "dogmatized". There is dogma in each choice of worldview. Take the idea for instance that religion causes most of the world's conflict. I'm taking that one on with facts and data. A reasonable, rational individual would abandon the notion for the nonsense that it is. Yet now we're reduced to intimating that there may be an association between religion and war. Doesn't that suggest a dogmatic hold on an obviously false idea.

I'll go on, JECE threw a ton of data at me as if that ended the discussion. Just take a look at the data though. He mentioned the Taiping Rebellion (the leader of which claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ) and claims that it was a religious war. Were the Chinese happily living their peaceful lives until this new "religion" (heresy more accurately) came along and swept them up in fanatical devoting? No, they were suffering under the last days of Quin Dynasty.

He mentioned the Congo Free State's 8,000,0000 to 10,000,000 deaths (not actually terming it a religious conflict). This was King Leopold II's personal colony. No Church that I could find had any real stake in it. You don't need to take my word for it, here's a link, see for yourself.

http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_Congo_Free_State_Colonialism_History.html


I'm not actually sure where you got the idea that I might be saying that you reject morality. I'm well aware that atheists can be as moral and indeed as immoral as anyone else. It was unintentional, my apologies if that's the impression you got.

Even if we accept the Taiping Rebellion as a truly religious war (and I'm certainly willing to do so), under Mao some estimates go as high as 70,000,000 people killed. As far as total body count for any atrocity atheists hold there own. There just is no basis to point the finger at religion, when in it's absence people behave just as badly or worse. This idea is the brainchild of some 19th Century atheists (Russell, and others) and the "New atheists" are banging the gong once again. The problem is that this is an issue upon which the facts do not support you, and facts should be the most important thing if your truly a free thinker.

I will respond, Crazy Anglican. Just give me time.

Okay, but allow me to preempt you if I may. It's pretty easy to come up with evidence supporting wars and conflict that aren't religiously motivated. Take a look at a book like "The Encyclopedia of Wars". It has 123 religious wars (that is wars fought to further, or defend religious beliefs or a religious organization). That certainly sounds like a lot except that there are over 2,500 wars included in the Encyclopedia dating back to 2,300 B.C. That puts religious wars at about 7% (I might be wrong on this as I'm quoting from memory). Add to this that Islam is involved in a little over half of those wars (interesting in that they weren't even around until the last 1,500 or so years of that time period). It puts all of the other religions as being responsible for about 3% of all wars. Therefore according that sample of wars 93% percent of wars are not religiously motivated. I'll provide the citation for that source in a little bit. The facts just do not support you. Religion is not to blame for most conflict. This is a myth concocted by Russell and others. There may have been a chance of getting people to believe it before the 20th Century, but good luck now. The only people who could possibly buy this would have little knowledge of history.

But we both agree that the law should not be passed. I think it's a waste of resources, and you think it's morally wrong.

@Crazy Anglican, What I've heard argued elsewhere by some Christians is that atheism is to blame for most of the death toll from war. I was disputing that Hitler (or, by extension, Nazi Germany) was motivated by atheism... indeed, Hitler spoke against atheism and bragged about how he had snuffed the movement out. I realize that you weren't arguing this point... I was just putting it out there. I'm fine with your "secular" characterization of most wars... the potential danger is for many, secular translates, incorrectly, into "atheist". And an incorrect conclusion from people recognizing that many wars are not based solely on religion is that somehow there would be less war if there were more believers or more war if there were more non-believers... when really, if the wars have nothing to do with religion, then changing the religion would change nothing. ...and I do mean "if"... because it may be difficult to prove, but it certainly seems likely that religion plays a part in more than 3% of wars. Indeed... they play a key part in both wars we are currently involved in.

People don't need religion to start conflict, because at the end of the day religion is only a thin veil for the epitome of narcissism that starts wars.

E.g. Hannibal, Caligula, Nero, Stalin, Alexander the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Napoleon etc.

All great tyrants were major narcissists. Usually when wars were "religious" it was really just massive ego's striving for self glory. So to say that "most" wars were started because of religion is a stretch at best.

@dexter morgan - I agree with you that Hitler did not kill in the name of Atheism (Hitler was actually a deist), however if America's wars are religious, then Stalin's death toll in the USSR was Atheist.

@KaptainKool, The Taliban and Al Qaeda are religiously motivated (as well as nationalistically). Some in the U.S. are religiously motivated about those wars... but not most. i.e. religious motivation need not be bilateral. I like your comments about narcissism, by the way. I think that model has a lot of truth to it.

@dexter morgan - thanks, you are right about the Taliban and Al Qaeda being religiously motivated, I don't know if I would say they started the war, but they definitely helped.

@dexter morgan

To say that "for some" our current wars are religiously motivated, is an interesting statement. It seems an effort to still put forth religion as a cause still (the term motivated being a causative one). Certainly on the Muslim side it appears to be so. The terrorists that attacked us were undoubtedly trying to strike a blow against our way of life and Christianity is part of that. Were they trying to bring down Christianity? I doubt it, but I don't really know.

On the other hand, aside from some dubious claims about Bush saying "God told me to do this.. or that" (The claim is dubious because the diplomat was a guy who had a grudge to begin with and others at the same meeting disputed it). Even if he did make the statements though, it doesn't mean that the American Congress who sanctioned the wars was doing so for religious reasons. The fact remains that Bush was a Christian president of a legally secular nation. Ask yourself this, was there any serious notion of spreading Christianity by the sword in Iraq or in Afghanistan? I've seen no evidence that anyone wanted to turn them into Christian nations at all. Our constitution forbids it anyway. If there is religious motivation, it's for the individual not for the government, and as such not the motivation for fighting the war. This is no crusade; it's a continuation of the social and economic tensions between the east and west. Christianity is part of western culture as Islam is part of Middle Eastern culture. No serious attempt to change that seems to be in the works. We're simply not fighting the war on behalf of Christianity. If we were it would seem that proselytizing would be one of the first things we'd be doing when we goth there.

It's been my experience that the definition of "religion causing most of our conflicts" gets really fuzzy when you challenge the notion with facts. If a man joins the military even chiefly because he thinks it's his religious duty, it still does not mean that his actions make any war he fights on that's motivated by his religion. Even so I've known many soldiers and sailors over the years, and they were all pretty much concerned with serving their country and it being their patriotic duty. Very few if any seemed to have seen it as a Christian duty. I have never served in any military and feel no conflict whatsoever as a Christian. I'm not aware of any surveys that list the motivations that people report for joining the armed services, but I'll look.

Another thing to note (This from Vox Day. pg 91) "It's worth noting that the of the nations with the largest armies The United States, India, CHina, North Korea, and Russia, two are officially atheistic, one was atheistic until recently and two are secular by law"

http://irrationalatheist.com/files/TheIrrationalAtheist.pdf

**one that's religiously motivated**

@Crazy Anglican: "Another thing to note (This from Vox Day. pg 91) "It's worth noting that the of the nations with the largest armies The United States, India, CHina, North Korea, and Russia, two are officially atheistic, one was atheistic until recently and two are secular by law""

You could easily conclude that being secular or atheist is associated with wealth and general success as a country. Of course that is too simplistic. (but I do think that being secular is a strength)

Perhaps & I'm not interested so much in painting secularism as a bad thing as in debunking this silly 19th Century myth attempting ot link religion with war. (although atheism hasn't worked out so well for Russia and North Korea- so they tend to belie that this might not be the case. In fact the countries that seem to be doing the best are that ones who protect the religious freedom of their populace. Even in China the populace is enjoying an upsurge in faith in spite of the government's stance)

A strong military is only one of the indicators of general wealth and success of a country (and in Russia's and North Korea's case not a very reliable one). ANother one to look at would be birth rate (happy & successful people tend to have families right? The secular west has dangerously low birth rates. Right now the French have a birth rate of 1.3, but look at the average Muslim family living in France and you see that their family size averages eight children. I'd be careful about touting secularism (if you're using it to mean a general trend away from religious faith) as a strength. Especially if you embrace evolution. Theism appears to give a distinct edge in reproduction.

regardless though the quote still leaves in doubt the militarism of religious societies. Secularism as a strength or weakness isn't something that I really dispute. There have been secular nations that have been successes and others that have been abyssmal failures. The same could be said for strongly religious societies and governments.

even though religion tends to blind people of rationality even though that may not be true for you. how do you define success?

I'll have to ask as I wasn't sure from your question. Are you stating that religion blinds people from rationality even though it doesn't appear to be the case with me? I'm not sure that my definition of success for a nation is that important as I've already stipulated that secular nations are probably as likely to be successes or failures an any other variety.

The dispute we were having was over this oft held but seldom well defended notion that religion causes most of the world's conflicts (that's where it usually begins, but usually gets beat back to something way more general once we start looking at any real evidence). The idea was a 19th Century rhetorical device, essentially a myth that could not stand the test of time.

I have to say that the continued conversation that appears to be bumping this thread is probably a good thing, even though we seem to have agreed that the laws in Uganda are a travesty.

@Crazy Anglican, Several thoughts to respond to:
religious freedom as a good thing: yes... a weakness of the Soviet regime was the attempt to destroy religious faith... a weakness of some religious regimes (such as some in the Arab world) is the attempt to purge the population of non-believers... and those who don't believe the "correct" faith. Freedom of religion is freedom to believe as you see fit... including not believing... Freedom of religion is central to a secular nation. ...and central to a successful nation, more often than not.

birth rate as a show of strength: a very odd measure... by that measure Haiti is a strong country at a 3.54 fertility rate... as is Afghanistan with a rate of 7.07, Nigeria with a rate of 5.32, Somalia with a rate of 6.04, etc., etc. Whereas countries such as Switzerland, Japan, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Hong Kong, and South Korea are abject failures with rates all currently below 2. The argument back to evolution is weak (but all too common)... if it was simply about birth rate, then the dominant species would all be insects... though I guess one could argue who is dominant... but there are many ways to be successful evolutionarily... And for many, a focus on quality child rearing rather than quantity seems to work out just fine.

How do I define success?: Well, that is a slippery thing... happiness, prosperity, community, security, leisure time... I couldn't put it done in a simple way... and I realize and respect that success means different things to different people.

Does religion blind people from rationality?: no, not really... though I do see religion itself as irrational... but that doesn't prevent people from being rational in other parts of their lives. None of us are rational in every respect, that is for sure. The other day my Mormon nephew asked me if I thought that religion and science can coexist... I answered, of course they can, by definition... because they actually do in practice all the time. But that doesn't mean that they aren't contradictory to each other in some basic ways, and perhaps ultimately corrosive to each other. One demands evidence in order to believe something and the other revels in believing something with no hard evidence - only a feeling. Seems like these two approaches are pretty incompatible... but we see them coexist in people all the time.

the 19th Century rhetorical device issue: yes, I see what you are saying... I do think that the spread of secular societies over theocracies* is a good thing... and I believe there are examples of each kind of society that seem to support my view... but, there are certainly examples across the board that muck up any attempt at making a sweeping conclusion. (*by theocracy I mean in a broad sense... any culture that has a particular religion woven into the power structure so that other views are not tolerated as much or not at all... not necessarily that the church power structure itself is directly running the country)

Yes - there are many things we can agree on. Religion/atheism nor any other philosophical differences need not get in the way. Those who are totally intolerant of other views tend to start to look the same to me... the actual views being fought for dim in contrast to the violence utilized toward their ends... Similarly, we can disagree - but we are both civilized (as we are as a community here). What we have in common, civility, is more important than the details of our philosophies.

@dexter morgan

"birth rate as a show of strength: a very odd measure... by that measure Haiti is a strong country at a 3.54 fertility rate... as is Afghanistan with a rate of 7.07, Nigeria with a rate of 5.32, Somalia with a rate of 6.04, etc., etc."

Okay you caught me, it was a facetious statment;-) I meant more to show that there is more to a society's strength than the size of their military (hence my immediate turn around and admission that secular- in terms of moving toward atheism- societies were probably were probably no more of less sucessful than any others). Size of the standing military, however, is a good indicator of the importance placed on war as a tool in that society. If indeed religious societies were the most warlike, it seems reasonable to expect that they would place the highest emphasis on preparedness for war. That doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not going to make a counter claim and give up the advantage of being on the defense. I do not believe that lack of religious belief is a major cause of conflict either. Human conflict is way too complex an issue to try to pin it's existence primarily on any one source.

I do agree that societies in which religious freedom is protected tend to be the best overall. Hence I'll argue the point when the slanderous myth comes around (once more) that religion is somehow to blame for human conflict. It's always a bit worrisome for me that there are those who appear to hold on so dearly to this nonsense as if it were an unassailable tenet of reason. Reason should above all check itself constantly and throw away that which is unreasonable.

I do find it curious that I, as a Christian, started this thread to express worry over and speak out against a series of unjust laws proposed in another Christian country. Yet for the past three pages I've been obliged to defend religion in general against a nonsensical 19th Century myth, the proponents of which have shown no hint of ability to adequately defend. Certainly we can be civil, but must every discussion, that includes religion, necessarily degrade into an "us" against "them" defense of it?

@Crazy Anglican, Virtually every advanced country on the globe is secular - or effectively so (such as countries that have a "state religion" [is the Church of England still the state religion of Britain?] but don't enforce any intolerance against other beliefs)... to me that's a pretty good argument for secularism as being perhaps better than theocracy. But I agree that it's not a proven point. You don't have to defend religion - really. I'm not attacking religion. I'm attacking religious intolerance... which is what you are attacking too... so I'm not sure why you feel that I'm attacking religion and forcing you to defend it. To be clear, my support of secularism is a support of religious freedom. Or perhaps you are responding to my commentary about how science and religion are in some ways in conflict (rationality contrasted with faith)... I'm not clear.

@ dexter morgan

I'm not sure about your definition of theocracy. The definition that I'm familiar with seems to indicate that a church or religion actually rules. In that respect Vatican City is the only Christian theocracy that I'm familiar with. Even so, I'm not familiar with any religious persecution of any of the citizens of Vatican City. Theocracies are not by definition intolerant (Muslims were initially very tolerant of Christians and Jews) and secular governments aren't by definition tolerant (The Republic of North Korea guarantees religious freedom to it's citizens, but apparently expects them to decline the privilege).

I think that this is probably our point of contention. Even if we agree that tolerance is best, one can see a distinct intolerance for religion among many of the "New Atheist" writers. Sam Harris has his equation that Religion + Science equals Death which seems to advocate either the rejection of religion or science. Dawkins advocates the idea that religion is the cause of most if not all of the world's conflict. The list goes on. Take for instance the title alone of Christopher Hitchens’s book "god is not good: how religion poisons everything", he apparently won’t even capitalize the title of his own book if it means capitalizing God’s name even though he doesn’t seem to have any problem with the convention for book titles in his other publications.

There is significant intolerance of religion; and that was the idea to which I was responding. I did not see myself as responding to you directly as you had disavowed the notion of blaming religion for most or many of the world’s conflicts. I was speaking against the idea itself, as some seemed to think that any contrary argument (much less one that's better grounded in fact) was by definition a weak or silly one born out of pious wishful thinking and dogma. I think I've adequately shown that's not the case as you're the only one who hasn't quit the field, and you seem to agree with me.

There are some finer points upon which we will probably never agree, but in general it would be hard to assert that a "theocracy" like Scotland is persecuting anyone who isn't a member of the Church of Scotland. Merely having an official religion doesn't make a government a theocracy. Germany is officially Lutheran. England is officially Anglican, but neither government could be termed a theocracy. On the other hand, secularism doesn’t always mean religious freedom or tolerance. In many instances it’s a guise for hostility toward religion if the Pope's recent visit to the Czech Republic is any indication. I think at the moment the Czech Republic is seen as one of the most secular nations in Europe. So I do not agree that secularism is superior in it’s tolerance in this regard. Tolerance is a good thing, yes, but it's a two way street. One cannot claim to be tolerant of religion if that person or group is also slandering it. The people that I was defending religion against were those who were asserting such slanderous ideas. I didn’t include you in that group, sorry if you got the impression that I was.

@Crazy Anglican, I'm glad to hear that you felt that we were basically on the same page... I felt that as well. I would say that Scotland, England and Germany would be in my "effectively secular" grouping... as would many other western democracies. I'm not familiar with the Czech Republic in any significant way (beyond what Wikipedia tells me)... but from what I understand, they have a large non-believing population... but I have no information on their policies in regards to religion. I'm not sure that a negative reaction to the Pope should necessarily translate into being intolerant of religion... as the current pope is a very conservative and vocal leader of one religion. The Pope broadcasts his views all the time... is it wrong for people who disagree with his proclamations and policies to broadcast their views? It is unusual for a pope to be treated with anything but deference... but what is up with that?? He is a political leader... and a religious leader who tries to influence politics. Seems to me that he has put himself (as have all previous popes) in a position to be fair game. People protest Obama or Bush or Blair or whoever... why not the Pope?

As far as my definition of theocracy... I realize I'm using a broad definition... and perhaps there is a better word for it. ...but this is what I mean: A theocracy would be a government that in some way has picked favorites as far as religious belief and gives deference and special power to that one religion... the extreme would be when a religious leader also runs the country directly... but why should it be limited to that? Most of the states in the U.S. were controlled by a particular religious sect in the early days of the union (Virginia was the only state of the original 13 that protected all religious faith - or lack thereof - in their state constitution... this served as a model for the U.S. Constitution... though that was still not required of states until the passage of the 14th Amendment about 80 years later). You could be hung for being open and vocal about being some religion other than Catholic in Massachusetts, for example... and several people were. ...yet at no time was a church formally in charge of the government. I would say that was a distinction without a difference. Effectively early Massachusetts was a theocracy (though not technically)... just as modern England, effectively, is secular.

I'd say that is where we differ rhetorically. It seems that you are manipulating the term theocracy ("theos" + "kratia" or essentially "government by God") probably unintentionally and in a way that seems perfectly reasonable and still more or less unfairly labelling any government a theocracy merely because they are give special consideration to a particular religious viewpoint. While you label governments that tolerate various religious viewpoints as secular (effectively separating religons or being an actual theocracy from being tolerant), when basically all secular means (to my knowledge) is "separate from religion". Unless I am completely misunderstanding your position, Stalinist Russia would be a theocracy (the sanctioned religious veiwpoint was atheism and other religious viewpoints were persecuted). This is obviously a stretch but it shows how the choice of terms can skew (even unintentionally) what you are saying toward one point or another.

Yes... sorry for confusing things with my terminology. I need to find better words for my points on this topic.