Child Abuse "On The Verge Of Torture" In The Name Of Christ

[Phrossack]

I'm willing to bet that it's creepy and vaguely fascist when you do it, too.

Indeed. I never really did the silly "Pledge of Allegiance" crap in school because it seemed fascist to have children daily swear allegiance to the State in a quasi-religious ceremony.

 

[Borachio]

Is there something creepy about fascism, then? I didn't know.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Indeed. I never really did the silly "Pledge of Allegiance" crap in school because it seemed fascist to have children daily swear allegiance to the State in a quasi-religious ceremony.

I, too, refused to pledge allegiance to anything when I was a child. Got detention for it, too.

Time well served. Compulsory pledges of allegiance cheapen the entire meaning of it.

I'm willing to pledge my allegiance to my fellow citizens of the United States of America, and I'm a big believer in liberty and justice for all. It's the partisan government, the flag, imagined deities, and so forth that I don't particularly care for. I wouldn't ever pledge allegiance to those.

Since freedom of speech and thought are core values of the country, forcing me to pledge things I don't believe in is the antithesis of American values. Particularly when I was a minor and legally incapable of making my own choices, let alone solemn pledges.

It's much like when parents force children to attend church and pray to things. Good luck getting me to do that.

 

[Verarde]

What on earth is the Christian Flag? I've never heard of it.

I'm Christian, and I've never heard of it either.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You really bolded the "Christian flag" part?

Our church has a pledge to the Christian flag, and we do not do crap like this.

Focus on the real problems please.

To me, having a religious flag of any sort and even pledging allegiance to it is indeed a "real problem". YMMV.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm willing to bet that it's creepy and vaguely fascist when you do it, too.

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

I, too, refused to pledge allegiance to anything when I was a child. Got detention for it, too.

Time well served. Compulsory pledges of allegiance cheapen the entire meaning of it.

I agree with you that they shouldn't do it in public school TBH.

To me, having a religious flag of any sort and even pledging allegiance to it is indeed a "real problem". YMMV.

No it isn't. Or, why do you think it is?

You are cheapening all the other stuff that went on by complaining about little issues like that. Just like you cheapen the suffering of those who truly suffer for their religion or lack of it when you say that its horiffic that "Under God" in in the pledge.

 

[Crezth]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

What makes you so sure? In this thread, I see religious people committing horrifying acts that I have yet to see most states best on a good day.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You are cheapening all the other stuff that went on by complaining about little issues like that. Just like you cheapen the suffering of those who truly suffer for their religion or lack of it when you say that its horiffic that "Under God" in in the pledge.

It isn't "cheapening" it in the least to point out what the real problem is. Militarism, nationalistic icons, and loyalty oaths have no place in true religions which profess turning the other cheek that have their roots in pacifism. This is what is actually "cheapening" the entire concept of Christianity while turning it into a travesty and a hypocritical sham.

It is also what makes all this so dangerous. Violent Christianity is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Tee Kay]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

Comparing apples and chainsaws.

 

[Phrossack]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

Really? The state has provided me with safety from thieves, pirates, bandits, and foreign armies. The state has provided the stability, legal framework, and security for the business transactions that form the economy that helps put food on my table even though I'm not a farmer myself. The state has paid for much of my education, and has built roads for transportation and sewers for sanitation. The state has helped provide the electricity that powers this forum, and helped (through DARPA) invent the Internet we're using.

Religion has told me that if I don't pray to a cloud-man, I'll burn forever. Religion has convinced some of my fellow citizens to hate and discriminate against each other based on race, creed, gender, and political orientation.

Both the government and religion are just constructs made by people in an attempt to improve life. The government is supposed to protect us, provide laws to make society function smoothly, and help provide for infrastructure and institutions for the public good. Religion is supposed to make life make more sense and provide comfort.

As an atheist, however, I think religion is merely a combination of wishful thinking and an intent to make people treat each other better, and since it's based on faith rather than facts, I don't believe it. I don't think religion is inherently evil, but rather, incorrect. I don't care what religion a person may be. I think that maybe it's nice that religion can make some people happier and nicer. But once they start abusing it for power or try to impose their beliefs, they cross a line.

The state, in contrast, certainly has benefitted me. It's deeply flawed and can be abused to worsen everyone's lives, but it's still made my life, and most people's lives, better with protection, education, stability, law and order, sanitation, transportation, and so on.

So you'll forgive me if I disagree with your assertion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As an atheist, however, I think religion is merely a combination of wishful thinking and an intent to make people treat each other better...

Emphasis mine.

If this part were only actually true the vast majority of time, I wouldn't be critical very much at all. I really don't care if believing in religion actually made people treat each other with dignity and respect. It is when they do just the opposite that I have to take great exception.

 

[Grendeldef]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

This is the weirdest thing I've seen for a while. A state is somewhat mandatory, very rarely evil, usually just ineffective to a degree but it still provides all the major necessities that human race needs to exist. It's beneficial to it's citizens and most likely has positive effects to others or no effect at all. Religion on the other hand is far from mandatory, possibly beneficial to it's members but very rarely to others and far too often an inconvenience or threat to others.
Abolishment of states would hardly benefit anyone but cause some harm to almost everyone while getting rid of religions would benefit everyone while some might not welcome the chance to think rationally for themselves as a blessing at first. This effect depends on whether we'd get rid of just organized religions or all beliefs to supernatural altogether.
In case there'll a poll I vote for abolishment of religions. In State We Trust (well, more than religions anyway).


G

 

[Ailedhoo]

These premises should be locked down and charges put forth. That is the primal consideration a effective power should commence.

"Religious exemption" is no excuse. "Limited goverment" is no excuse. "State rights" is no excuse. The acts of these premises have been of not just a case of great harm and violation of rights but also a act of utter sociopathic tendency.

There must be a effective force of monitoring these places.

Justice must be uphold. That is the first and ultimate consideration.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

I don't think that "religion" is a phenomenon about which we can reasonably generalise, nor that it is always distinct from the state. In this case, for example, a religious organisation attempted to adopt a number of state or state-like functions, which would no be possible with the sort of ontological incompatibility you suggest.

Really? The state has provided me with safety from thieves, pirates, bandits, and foreign armies. The state has provided the stability, legal framework, and security for the business transactions that form the economy that helps put food on my table even though I'm not a farmer myself. The state has paid for much of my education, and has built roads for transportation and sewers for sanitation. The state has helped provide the electricity that powers this forum, and helped (through DARPA) invent the Internet we're using.

Milord doth permit me to harvest mine turnips pon his land, doth pay to maintain the holy Church among us, and doth shield me from the maraudings of yonder vikings; thusly I cannot think to imagine a world lacking in our most esteemed hereditary aristocrats.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Not really. Religion is far, far superior to the state, which is almost always evil.

These are perfectly compatible!

Abolishment of states would hardly benefit anyone

Statist

 

[Borachio]

Here's the Christian Flag. Spoilered to protect the innocent.

Spoiler :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Flag

I'd not seen this before. I can't say it fills me with enthusiasm. I find it rather sinister, to be honest. But, of course, the Vatican State has long had a flag.

Oh, and I stumbled on this:
Civil religion

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Religion has told me that if I don't pray to a cloud-man, I'll burn forever.

Religion has done far worse than this.

Religion has convinced people that it should be a crime for women to show any part of their body in public. Religion has convinced people to cut the genitals of their infant children. Religion has convinced people that it's necessary to go to war over land that they've never set foot upon before or ever seen before, just because it is occupied by people of another faith. Religion has convinced people that it is okay to persecute and torture and kill the non-religious or those they consider blasphemers. And if all of that wasn't bad enough, when they ran out of heretics and blasphemers and atheists to kill, they went to work attempting to destroy other religions. Religion has convinced people to question science, question scientists, and even try to silence them through death. Religion has taught people that there is value in belief that is based on nothing but sheer willpower, and a stubborn resistance to all other ideas.

Everything good that is attributed to religion has been done by people of all faiths and people who lack faith, and it predates religion. It's clearly not attributable to any one faith or even religion at all.

The state, on the other hand, gives us roads, power, sanitation, helps prevent crime, captures, investigates, and prosecutes criminals, keeps them from harming others, protects people from invasion from a foreign power, creates security procedures that keep us safe when we fly, gathers intelligence on and disrupts terrorist networks and plots, provides a basic safety net for the poor, the sick, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the elderly, educates the people, funds scientific discovery, sets a standard maximum amount of poison I'm allowed to have in my oatmeal that I eat every single day and persecutes businesses who don't comply with those safety standards, ensures I don't have arsenic in my drinking water, and goes after idiots who don't know how to safely construct a building and it collapses and kills half your family.

Rare are the instances where the state does something evil and gets away with it. And eventually, idiots get tossed out of office in a government that's a democratic republic.

In organized religion, on the other hand, you can have a guy who raped children keep their place for decades, being shifted from one sanctuary from the state to another, protected by his fellow child molesters and rapists, all while being exempt from taxes.

And of course, you have people doing what the OP was talking about, torturing and nearly killing their own children, and getting away with it, in the nutball name of idiot religion, nyah nyah nyah the state can't touch me.

I would rather have the state, which is answerable to us all, have authority over the church, which is answerable to nothing, not even basic human decency and conscience.

And for the love of your God, not only should these institutions be taxed, but when they do stuff like this, their property needs to be taken away, sold on the market, with the proceeds going 100% to benefit the children who need to be taken away and placed in foster care.

Parents who send these kids to these places should be thrown in a special jail that treats them EXACTLY the way their kids were treated, right down to the hose showers and the rape. I'll give such a jail a religious exemption not to treat the prisoners with any semblance of human rights or human dignity.

See how they like it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Whiggism is alive and well, eh?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Whiggism is alive and well, eh?

And before your edit:

There's a lot that could be contested in that, but I'll start with the obvious one: how can religion "do" anything? It exists only in abstract, it can't actually go around cutting people up. Only people can do that.

The state is much the same way. It only exists because people say it does.

It's an abstract I trust in, and has more demonstrably positive results, than the other abstraction.

 

[kochman]

Religion has done far worse than this.

Religion has convinced people that it should be a crime for women to show any part of their body in public. Religion has convinced people to cut the genitals of their infant children. Religion has convinced people that it's necessary to go to war over land that they've never set foot upon before or ever seen before, just because it is occupied by people of another faith. Religion has convinced people that it is okay to persecute and torture and kill the non-religious or those they consider blasphemers. And if all of that wasn't bad enough, when they ran out of heretics and blasphemers and atheists to kill, they went to work attempting to destroy other religions. Religion has convinced people to question science, question scientists, and even try to silence them through death. Religion has taught people that there is value in belief that is based on nothing but sheer willpower, and a stubborn resistance to all other ideas.

Everything good that is attributed to religion has been done by people of all faiths and people who lack faith, and it predates religion. It's clearly not attributable to any one faith or even religion at all.

The state, on the other hand, gives us roads, power, sanitation, helps prevent crime, captures, investigates, and prosecutes criminals, keeps them from harming others, protects people from invasion from a foreign power, creates security procedures that keep us safe when we fly, gathers intelligence on and disrupts terrorist networks and plots, provides a basic safety net for the poor, the sick, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the elderly, educates the people, funds scientific discovery, sets a standard maximum amount of poison I'm allowed to have in my oatmeal that I eat every single day and persecutes businesses who don't comply with those safety standards, ensures I don't have arsenic in my drinking water, and goes after idiots who don't know how to safely construct a building and it collapses and kills half your family.

Rare are the instances where the state does something evil and gets away with it. And eventually, idiots get tossed out of office in a government that's a democratic republic.

In organized religion, on the other hand, you can have a guy who raped children keep their place for decades, being shifted from one sanctuary from the state to another, protected by his fellow child molesters and rapists, all while being exempt from taxes.

And of course, you have people doing what the OP was talking about, torturing and nearly killing their own children, and getting away with it, in the nutball name of idiot religion, nyah nyah nyah the state can't touch me.

I would rather have the state, which is answerable to us all, have authority over the church, which is answerable to nothing, not even basic human decency and conscience.

And for the love of your God, not only should these institutions be taxed, but when they do stuff like this, their property needs to be taken away, sold on the market, with the proceeds going 100% to benefit the children who need to be taken away and placed in foster care.

Parents who send these kids to these places should be thrown in a special jail that treats them EXACTLY the way their kids were treated, right down to the hose showers and the rape. I'll give such a jail a religious exemption not to treat the prisoners with any semblance of human rights or human dignity.

See how they like it.

OK, so, religion = bad... State = good.

How completely sane of you.

Now I will take a minute to remind that states/governments mobilize entire nations to kill entire other nations, and sometimes their own nation... have had slavery... funded terrorism... created and used nuclear weapons... etc.

Mao's mass murder... Stalin's... Pol Pot... No trace of religion in those. Hitler's as well, because if you think Hitler really had issues with the Hebrew faith versus the Christian faith you are off your rocker... etc, etc, etc.

How about this Pizza, if you can possibly see another, wider point of view...
Human organizations are often corrupted from their more benign purpose/intention by humans.