The greatest human tragedy of all time

[Sarathos]

Put me down for religion.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Put me down for religion.

Although I would suggest that belief (or hope) that there is a God or Gods is not in and of itself too destructive, what people add to those beliefs almost always is. If one presumes that there is a God, I suppose it gives people hope that if they do well in this life they will be rewarded by the eternal judge and be granted everlasting peace and harmony. While I think this is a bit too optimistic to believe wholeheartedly, as much as I'd like to believe it, I do not think that it can be disproven that there is a God, and so therefore it's even in the realm of legitimate theory. How did the universe get here, and why? God seems as good an explanation as any.

But what happens when people convince other people that they know God, they speak to God, they rub elbows with this God, and play Parcheesi with God? There are always going to be stupid people who believe it. (Part of that whole ignorance concept I describe above) Then they stand up and say the following things:

1. "There is only one written word of God, and it just so happens I have a copy of it, in my own handwriting no less."

2. "If you do not believe that this is the written word of God, he will burn you forever in a lake of fire where you will writhe in agony for all eternity, you worthless vile sinner... but he loves you."

3. "If you take up arms against the infidels, you will be rewarded by Allah by 72 virgin slave girls"

4. "It is right to mutilate your infant child's genitals, and if you refuse, he will not be allowed in God's special club for chosen people."

5. "It is perfectly acceptible for a man to divorce his wife by saying 'I divorce you'. Women, on the other hand, need the approval of their family."

6. "A woman's testimony is worth half what a man's testimony is."

7. "God is capable of destroying entire cities filled with innocent women and children because the city has homosexual men in it"

8. "God might ask you to kill your own son, and if you attempt to go through with it, he will reward you by making you his chosen messenger."

9. "Moses, the most pious man of them all in the eyes of God, killed an Egyptian when no one was looking. This means that murder is ok under certain circumstances." (Exodus 2:12)

10. "God can indiscriminately kill all the firstborn children in Egypt to prove a political point. He's such a nice guy."

11. "Only virgins are worthy of marriage. The younger, the better."

12. Exodus 2:20 says that it's "OK to kill the 4 billion people on Earth who do not believe in the Biblical God."

13. "I will bring evil unto all Flesh, sayeth the LORD" (Jer 45:5)

I could continue, but there isn't enough space for all the criticisms I have.

Oh yeah. These are the religions I want to follow. Let's make sure we always do the following:

1. Attend church and pay the nice holy men a tithe so that they can say how condemned to hellfire we are for being such nasty sinners. (What do they use our charity for? They build gold-encrusted churches and gilded Bibles and fancy cathedrals to convince more people to cough up money)

2. Trust pastors and preachers, for they would never lie, cheat, steal, or molest children. (Right!)

3. Elect an "infallible" man to take the place of Jesus, and wear offical robes and a pretty crown, and lay down even more edicts he received in a phone call he had with Jehovah this afternoon. (By the way, these certain infallible men have started Holy wars, killed men on the battlefield, and were defeated in battle. And later Popes contradicted earlier Popes, because they were ever more infallible. And some Popes had children out of wedlock, and committed sins. Hmmmm...)

4. Pray five times a day, because five is the magical number of the mighty Allah. Six would be too many, and four would make you an infidel worthy of being smoted.

5. If you meet an infidel, cut his throat.

You get the idea. There's far more, but I have something else I want to say.

It's not just the Abrahamic faiths that deserve to be shunned. The whole "untouchable" thing in Hindu culture is an abomination. The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law, is a horrendous travesty. The Aztec religion required the ritual human sacrifice of millions of people, a Holocaust in and of itself. Pagan, Wiccan, Vodun, you name it. There's enough criticism for everyone.

Don't get me wrong, anti-religious movements (See: Soviet Russia, China) have caused the deaths of millions too and provided the excuse for many horrendous crimes. It was the militant anti-theist philosophy, spread by mass murder, which was the cause of that. Of course, when you believe in something enough to kill for it, and believe your philosophy is the only true path, then one might say you're acting exactly like an intolerant religious fundamentalist, whose religion just happens to be "anti-religion".

Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.

[Decker]

Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.

Is it the religion itself or the people that run it?

There's always two sides to the sword(or however that saying goes), and there are both good and bad sides to religion. Many of the time it is the moral basis for which society lives by nowadays, yet then there are those who it up for the rest of us or misuse it for their own purposes which in turn would turn many away as I have witnessed. But unlike you saying Religion owes us an apology, I tend to see it as the crazy that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it the religion itself or the people that run it?

There's always two sides to the sword(or however that saying goes), and there are both good and bad sides to religion. Many of the time it is the moral basis for which society lives by nowadays, yet then there are those who it up for the rest of us or misuse it for their own purposes which in turn would turn many away as I have witnessed. But unlike you saying Religion owes us an apology, I tend to see it as the crazy that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place

Well I could make the distinction between organized religion and personal faith, but I didn't see the need. One person's personal faith is unlikely to change the world for the worse, unless he's a mass murderer or the owner of a nation. However, when someone's faith becomes the faith of the masses, that's when bad stuff starts to happen. It's organized religion which is the culprit.

When one has personal faith, one does not need people to "run" thier religion. However, when one subscribes to one of the major religions and believes that they need to have some guy wearing a dress telling them what to believe, how to act, how to pray, which passages of which book to read; that's when people start to worship what fallible men have come up with, rather than something genuinely spiritual.

One can have religious faith without having to attend some group. And if so, they tend not to cause trouble. It's the big organized faiths which start wars and condemn one another for being heretical.

[Decker]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well I could make the distinction between organized religion and personal faith, but I didn't see the need. One person's personal faith is unlikely to change the world for the worse, unless he's a mass murderer or the owner of a nation. However, when someone's faith becomes the faith of the masses, that's when bad stuff starts to happen. It's organized religion which is the culprit.

When one has personal faith, one does not need people to "run" their religion. However, when one subscribes to one of the major religions and believes that they need to have some guy wearing a dress telling them what to believe, how to act, how to pray, which passages of which book to read; that's when people start to worship what fallible men have come up with, rather than something genuinely spiritual.

One can have religious faith without having to attend some group. And if so, they tend not to cause trouble. It's the big organized faiths which start wars and condemn one another for being heretical.

Ahhh.... okay. I see what you mean. I was a little confused with what you were saying.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law

It should be clearly known that the so called female circumcision (brutally cutting off the visible part of the clitoris) has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic law. I was outraged last Sunday to hear on an NGC documentary (not one of their best, btw) that a grizzled old sheikh at El-Ezher advocate the contrary. (He had absolutely no proof for his claim but his prideful and arrogant statement.) That man and his likes deserve being dismembered and left to death from bleeding!
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

.

It should be clearly known that the so called female circumcision (brutally cutting off the visible part of the clitoris) has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic law. I was outraged last Sunday to hear on an NGC documentary (not one of their best, btw) that a grizzled old sheikh at El-Ezher advocate the contrary. (He had absolutely no proof for his claim but his prideful and arrogant statement.) That man and his likes deserve being dismembered and left to death from bleeding!
.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/438/viewall/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...igious_aspects

Female genital cutting predates Islam. In Saudi Arabia, in the area known as the Hijaz, where Islam originated, FGC was already being practiced during the lifetime of Muhammad. To call a man a "circumciser of women" was an insult among the pagan Arabs at the time. Female genital cutting is not commanded by the Qur'an and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims. In Egypt, mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa stated: "The traditional form of excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds."

I am delighted in the extreme to have been proven wrong about something I repeated in error.

Islam itself did not mandate or begin this practice.

However, Islam is not totally innocent, because although they did not originate this practice, at least one Sunni Muslim school mandates this barbarism.

One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory. Sheikh Faraz Rabbani states, "That which is wajib [obligatory] in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce." Contrary to the WHO definition, he states that this practice is not "FGM, nor harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure." He states that "excision, FGM, or other harmful practices" are not permitted. In 1994, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Jad Al-Hâqq argued that the procedure may not be banned simply on grounds of improper use. The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.

So, as you can see, while the Quran does not specifically advocate for it in any way, certain religious Islamic schools do. But Mouzafphaerre is right, Islam itself is not the culprit here.

I even double checked my Quran, and double checked the Skeptics Annotated Quran. If I have overlooked anything, feel free to correct me again.

___________________________________

On a related note, female genital circumcision is among the most horrendous examples of the concept of ignorance I described earlier. Thankfully Mouzafphaerre was here to heal my ignorance regarding Islam as the culprit.

And that is how people are supposed to behave when confronted with their own ignorance.

I enjoy having my ignorance healed.

[naut]

Good posts Askthepizzaguy. I'd have to say pride or as STFS put it:

Self richeousness

[Askthepizzaguy]

self-righteousness.

Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.

[Togakure]

self-righteousness.

Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.

I think Sufis and Zen Buddhists at least would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this, though perhaps the term enlightened would need to be substituted for righteous.

You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale. Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous. Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda? How are you different? How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The majority of Kurds (about one fifth of the total population) and the whole of Arabs in TR follow the Shafī school, which I'm not totally ignorant of. Especially the Kurd mullas are extremely strict, dare I say fanatic, about the Shafi ways and none of them either practice or advocate the clit-cutting.

Your Wikipedia quote is apparently taken from the abominable mouth of one of the types of the Ezher professor I told about. It has nothing to do with any established Sunni or Shi'i system. I dislike bragging but I'm well learned enough in religious matters and I can back up my stance with solid reference if needed. They can't. They are simply the toys of damnable tradition and talking in religious disguise.
.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?

Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?

I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?

Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.

.
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).

In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves.

As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.

ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.

Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth
.