Posted by jeepdave No man can kill in the name of God and think he is doing the right thing. But, he will use the name of God to justify what he has done.

Lots of men do kill in the name of god and fully believe that they are doing the right thing - every day.

The men that flew airplanes into the side of the world trade centre killed thousands and fully believed that god fully approved and would reward them on the occasion of their martyrdom.

People can find all kinds of justifications to kill one another. Some justifications are reasonable and others are unreasonable.

Using religion, which is all too common, is particularly alarming. The dogma, the group think, complex rituals and speech patterns are all designed for indoctrination. There are no controls and it is far to easy to subvert or "mis-interpret" scripture - or even to use it's original intent as the fundies do.

Religion is an excuse to believe unreasonable things and act on them. Society tacitly allows this and pays the price regularly.

Further, for centuries religion has served the singular purpose of dividing humans into groups and that has made it far too easy to condemn others outside the group as sub human or at least more deserving of contempt.

Whether you see the religious aspects of the third reich or not, they used the exact same "in-group" thinking that islamsists or white supremacists use today. "We are the chosen people, those people over there are not. In fact they are sub-human monsters. You will be rewarded for exterminating them."

I suggest that we not attack religion specifically for this - but ALL unreasonable ideas. If we had a higher standard for our ideas and lower tolerance for BS we would all be a lot better off.

Posted by MrGreenJeans So you only object to wars against people with darker skin than you?

Of course not. I oppose any war where the motive is profit or unsubstantiated beliefs. Historically, though, wars against non-whites have been easier to justify. Enough said on this topic.

Again, more lies about Catholics "raping children". The actual numbers of alleged rapes are very tiny compared to the number of allegations of other so-called "abuse", which is also very small compared to the numbers of Catholics. You do not know of any other group because you have no interest in finding out if your assertions about Catholics are true or not.

Please provide some actual numbers, with reliable sources cited. Until then, STFU. I might go out on a limb here, but I would argue that ANY child abuse is too much, and covering it up, regardless if it was one kid or one million, is inexcusable.

Atheists also have meetings, churches, and are recognized by the US Supreme Court as a religion. Some atheists want their beliefs to be considered a religion when it's convenient to enjoy the benefits of such a title, but not when they are crying about other religions.

We have churches?!?!?! Yeah, the Cleveland Skeptics have meeting (at Great Lakes Brewing Company, BTW), but where the hell are the atheist churches? The library? And when the the SCOTUS recognize atheism as a religion? (again, citation requested) Individual groups might be registered non-profits, but that doesn't make them a religion. Get off the Christian web sites and read some actual atheist ones.

Apologies for the double post, but there were a couple other things I wanted to respond to...

Christians as a group are much more likely to seek forgiveness for unsavory activities than non-Christians. Where you claim there is a "cover up" others see faith in repentance.

Atheists and other non-Christians would seek forgiveness from the actual people wronged, not from Big Daddy.

The idea that Hitler wanted to remove the jews from Germany on purely religious grounds is absurd. I never said there haven't been many examples of actual atrocities in the name of religion, only that these are far outweighed by atrocities for other reasons.

Google "gott mit uns belt buckle" if you doubt that the Nazis were religious. ("Gott mit uns" is German for "God With Us."}

I suggest that we not attack religion specifically for this - but ALL unreasonable ideas. If we had a higher standard for our ideas and lower tolerance for BS we would all be a lot better off.

QFT.

splumer, kinda funny you can make wild claims, racist remarks and then demand to have "proof" for anything you disagree with when you fail to give any proof to your own claims.

"I'll go ahead and repeat my core argument from a few threads back: atrocities are committed for the purposes of attaining or maintaining power rather than purely being motivated by the ideology that is used to justify them. "

right on earthworm.

The idea that hitler was persecuting jews out of some Catholic fanaticism is idiotic. The jews were simply a large and easily identifiable non-German group making them easy targets. TPTB will use any tool at their disposal to get and maintain power and the abuse of religion has often been used.

Look up atheist church and you'll find plenty, just because you don't belong to one doesn't mean they don't exist. Hell, I found one where I was able to sign up to be "ordained" as an atheist "reverend". I'm one of you now !

Posted by MrGreenJeans splumer, kinda funny you can make wild claims, racist remarks and then demand to have "proof" for anything you disagree with when you fail to give any proof to your own claims.

What did I say that you found racist? Was it the fact that it's easier to demonize, say, Iraqis or Afghans than Norwegians?

Posted by splumer What did I say that you found racist? Was it the fact that it's easier to demonize, say, Iraqis or Afghans than Norwegians?

Not a fact Splume. Opinion. It sure was easy for us to demonize the Russians during the cold war, and I don't know many Black Ruskies.

Posted by jeepdave Not a fact Splume. Opinion. It sure was easy for us to demonize the Russians during the cold war, and I don't know many Black Ruskies.

Point taken, but think about where we actually intervened militarily to fight communism: Latin America & Vietnam. And then there's the war on drugs.

It certainly is racist to single out war only "against people with darker skin", rather than simply saying that war itself is an issue. The implication is that war against "lighter skin" people is okay. So it's okay for caucasians to fight with other caucasians or for "darker skinned people" to kill caucasians. I suppose you're fine with the World Wars we fought against mainly caucasians because we couldn't demonize the light skinned communists or nazis.

Posted by MrGreenJeans It certainly is racist to single out war only "against people with darker skin", rather than simply saying that war itself is an issue. The implication is that war against "lighter skin" people is okay. So it's okay for caucasians to fight with other caucasians or for "darker skinned people" to kill caucasians. I suppose you're fine with the World Wars we fought against mainly caucasians because we couldn't demonize the light skinned communists or nazis.

That's pretty weak.

That is not the implication at all. You are, once again, misrepresenting someone's statements to try to support your own argument.

You have yet to provide any evidence or explain your arguments in any coherent sense.

Your response here seems to be another red herring to distract form the fact that your arguments are not supported and you keep failing to respond when someone asks for support for your outrageous claims and impossible assertions.

Posted by tekriter Your response here seems to be another red herring to distract form the fact that your arguments are not supported and you keep failing to respond when someone asks for support for your outrageous claims and impossible assertions.

Well, he did base his choice of screen name on a semi-retarded redneck.

You have yet to provide any evidence or explain your arguments in any coherent sense.

I could say the same for the vast majority of the posts in this thread from all parties. Thus, I will not waste any more time with this thread filled with little more than Catholic bashing and racism. I've already made the point that nobody should be forced by the government to pay for the sexual choices of another individual, especially against their own moral convictions.

Posted by MrGreenJeans I've already made the point that nobody should be forced by the government to pay for the sexual choices of another individual, especially against their own moral convictions.

And no.

Posted by MrGreenJeans You have yet to provide any evidence or explain your arguments in any coherent sense. I could say the same for the vast majority of the posts in this thread from all parties. Thus, I will not waste any more time with this thread filled with little more than Catholic bashing and racism. I've already made the point that nobody should be forced by the government to pay for the sexual choices of another individual, especially against their own moral convictions.

live up to the stereotype, stuff your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la because you either don't understand, don't want to understand or can't understand how things work.

thanks for that.

Posted by MrGreenJeans It certainly is racist to single out war only "against people with darker skin", rather than simply saying that war itself is an issue. The implication is that war against "lighter skin" people is okay. So it's okay for caucasians to fight with other caucasians or for "darker skinned people" to kill caucasians. I suppose you're fine with the World Wars we fought against mainly caucasians because we couldn't demonize the light skinned communists or nazis.

I can't believe I'm still responding to this.

I'm sure you recall all the WWII propaganda posters that portrayed Japanese people as, well, I guess "animalistic' would be the best way to describe it. I don't recall similar stereotyping of Germans, Italians or other members of the Axis. I guess I need to repeat myself AGAIN: the US gov't finds it easier...

Ah screw this. I'm done.

Posted by MrGreenJeans You have yet to provide any evidence or explain your arguments in any coherent sense. I could say the same for the vast majority of the posts in this thread from all parties. Thus, I will not waste any more time with this thread filled with little more than Catholic bashing and racism. I've already made the point that nobody should be forced by the government to pay for the sexual choices of another individual, especially against their own moral convictions.

Let me paraphrase:

"I don't understand logic and have no grasp of the material. I will take my deflated ball and go back to the pointless forest and eat magic faith mushrooms.

I will also call everyone racists and scream about special pleading for religious arguments to once again distract from my completely baseless position and elementary understanding of the big words I use.

But before I go I will throw out some fundy hyperbole about the taxpayers having to pay people to have sex. It's not true but rush said it and all women are whores. Let's ignore the fact that private health insurance is not government funded which might be why it is called private - whores! racists! Look over there everyone! jesus on grilled cheese!"

Does that about sum it up?

if jesus were an abortion, then he wouldve died for our sins much sooner.

Posted by MrGreenJeans I've already made the point that nobody should be forced by the government to pay for the sexual choices of another individual, especially against their own moral convictions.

It's entirely plausible, and in fact rather likely, that a woman who works at a Catholic hospital or university might get pregnant out of wedlock. Would the institution be morally right in refusing to pay for pre-natal care or childbirth?

Posted by splumer It's entirely plausible, and in fact rather likely, that a woman who works at a Catholic hospital or university might get pregnant out of wedlock. Would the institution be morally right in refusing to pay for pre-natal care or childbirth?

If they are paying for it, yes. Kids have been born for thousands of years with neither. Just sayn'

Posted by jeepdave If they are paying for it, yes. Kids have been born for thousands of years with neither. Just sayn'

And until recently, women (and babies) dying in childbirth was fairly common.

Posted by jeepdave If they are paying for it, yes. Kids have been born for thousands of years with neither. Just sayn'

So, every life is valuable, unless the mom is a whore.