>> ^ghark:

Why is the Church of Scientology being investigated for "abusive behaviour" when many individuals in the catholic church rape boys and the church gets little in the way of an investigation.


EXACTLY what I was thinking.

>> ^ghark:

Why is the Church of Scientology being investigated for "abusive behaviour" when many individuals in the catholic church rape boys and the church gets little in the way of an investigation.
Because no one thinks Scientology is a real religion, except Scientologists of course. If these accusations were coming from some Baptist church somewhere in Alabama, believe me the authorities would be just as sleepy-eyed as they normally are.

Why is the Church of Scientology being investigated for "abusive behaviour" when many individuals in the catholic church rape boys and the church gets little in the way of an investigation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'christopher, hitchens, mother, teresa, catholic, church, vatican, religion, christian' to 'christopher hitchens, mother teresa, catholic church, vatican, religion, christian' - edited by xxovercastxx

Whether thrown in an oven or massacred by bombs and artillery what is the difference ?
And yes, I do believe as many Muslims have been slaughtered over their history as the Jews (if not more).

Also, ALL orthodox religions are CRAZY ! Christian, Jew or Muslim. Please stop cherry picking extreme events to paint Muslims as crazy, all religions are guilty of it. I can't be bothered to troll the internet for tragic instances of religious freaks killing each other, but it's all there. Just look at orthodox Jews in Israel if you want to see the oppression of women. I don't see the west stepping in to 'help' them.

Also, the west is mostly to blame for the lack of progress in the middle east. Every time an organized modern government appears, we bomb it back into the stone age or setup a dictator to take them out.
The west does not want progress in the middle east. Just look at Israel / Palestine.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^billpayer:
This talk is pathetic.
The Hudson institute is a bunch or war mongering fascists set up by Herman Kahn (sociopath) and RAND corp (ie. US Military Industrial Complex).
Scum like these have been building up Islamophobia for decades.
Muslims are in-arguably the new Jews and are the subjects of persecution all over the globe.

Interesting, and where are the getting tossed into ovens by the tens of thousands? Where do women still get stoned for showing their faces? While no doubt, the subject or some western bigotry, the comparison to them to Jews is just patently absurd. Even African Americans pre-60s had it harder then Muslims today. Are there separate Muslims bathrooms, no.
This talk is not pathetic. Was it pathetic the Catholic Church was, and still is, the subject of malice over the recent fiasco, no. Western bigotry over Muslim ideals is inevitable, because as they currently are incompatible. They don't have to be, but that is the current state of them. A man can beat his wife for not putting out. A women can be stoned for adultery, and adultery can be so loosely defined as being alone with another man that is not your husband.
This does cause undue stress on Muslims that do not practice these ideals, they are the true victims. But they still don't have it as bad as AA did in America, the Jews in German, or the women in Muslim countries do today.

>> ^billpayer:

This talk is pathetic.
The Hudson institute is a bunch or war mongering fascists set up by Herman Kahn (sociopath) and RAND corp (ie. US Military Industrial Complex).
Scum like these have been building up Islamophobia for decades.
Muslims are in-arguably the new Jews and are the subjects of persecution all over the globe.


Interesting, and where are the getting tossed into ovens by the tens of thousands? Where do women still get stoned for showing their faces? While no doubt, the subject or some western bigotry, the comparison to them to Jews is just patently absurd. Even African Americans pre-60s had it harder then Muslims today. Are there separate Muslims bathrooms, no.

This talk is not pathetic. Was it pathetic the Catholic Church was, and still is, the subject of malice over the recent fiasco, no. Western bigotry over Muslim ideals is inevitable, because as they currently are incompatible. They don't have to be, but that is the current state of them. A man can beat his wife for not putting out. A women can be stoned for adultery, and adultery can be so loosely defined as being alone with another man that is not your husband.

This does cause undue stress on Muslims that do not practice these ideals, they are the true victims. But they still don't have it as bad as AA did in America, the Jews in German, or the women in Muslim countries do today.

I listened as a friend of mine, who is a Pastor at a local church, tell about how he does not believe in religion, at all, in any shape, or form. He does believe in His god though. He described it as a personal relationship between him and God.

We have to remember that a person that believes in God has a believe you can't take away or sway. They can evolve their own opinions but it's "Their" belief - regardless of what it is.

Most of the negativity that comes between atheism and faith is the "Religion" that operates like an outer shell and tries to overpower and control the personal beliefs of the individual.

A person's belief system doesn't affect me or the person beside them in church. A person will believe what they want. It's the religion that starts to dictate the rules of engagement and control. Not everyone believes the exact same thing, which is why the Catholic church has spun off into so many variations. From there, people just jump from church to church until they find the one that closest resembles their beliefs.

Those who just don't believe, and there are far more than they realize or want us to believe (I like to believe it's 50/50), are just the ones at the far end of the spectrum, the farthest from the Fundamentalist establishments.

@SDGundamX

To be absolutely honest I haven't done much reading about how many Africans were killed as a direct consequence to the preachings of the Catholic Church. I do however believe that in poor parts where people are uneducated, a missionary loaded with the dogma and latest rationales about the sinfulness of using condoms can do significant damage (especially if it fits the culture). I will try to fit some time in to do more research on the topic and get back to you. My somewhat uninformed view is that the Pope now having changed his mind opens a brighter future, but significant damage has been done and will linger for a long time. For now I assume we both agree that the Catholic Church has done more damage than good when it comes to the spreading of AIDS in Africa.

If we flip the argument a bit instead, imagine a church that actively supported the use of condoms for stopping the spreading of AIDS and did not believe in abstinence (which has been pretty much proven ineffective). Members giving contributions to send missionaries that could do sex education and supply free condoms and advice about sexuality. I bet that religion could save countless lives, but instead we are stuck with the Catholic Church and its books and dogmas. The Catholic Church did not want people to get infected with AIDS but at the same time I've a hard time seeing how its dogmas help the situation. Either way I will read up on the subject and we can have another round

I don't see this video as aimed at religious people. I see it squarely aimed at people who think religion is nonsense but cave in to the taboo of not calling it just that. The emperor has no clothes; people do not need to give the respect that religions think they owe. Calling religious people idiots dispel peoples belief that some thoughts deserve to go unchallenged.

A quick word about religious moderates. I do not think they exist because the church realized one day a new way of reading the bible. I do believe moderates exist because science just made people realize the Bible or any other holy book cannot be read literally. This whole thing about reading the Bible (or any holy book) in a new and better way; I simply cannot see how it comes from religion itself, built on authority and dogma it just wont move on its own. This to me means that if moderates have a somewhat better perspective and attitude they do not owe it to religion.

Well done the catholic church, do the Ugandans not wonder that the people who spread the catholic religion to them are the people have committed a massive amount of crime against children, homosexual priests buggering children for centuries. The irony is insane.

@chtierna

I think maybe you confused my points a little bit. I wasn't saying atrocities don't happen anymore. I was saying that people use religion to justify atrocities but that doesn't automatically mean religion is the cause of the atrocity. So to take your AIDS example, I don't think AIDS is spreading rampantly in Africa due to the Catholic Church's disapproval of condoms. I think the price and availability of condoms along with cultural attitudes and a lack of education have a lot more to do with it. As evidence of this, you don't see the epidemic of AIDS in other Catholic countries that do have cheap and readily available condoms as well as education about the risks of unprotected sex.

And the Church's attitude towards condoms is not "Hey we hope everybody gets AIDS." They've repeatedly stated their stance that sex should be for procreation only. Some of their faithful (a good deal I would wager ) choose to engage in sex for pleasure rather than procreation. The Church feels that condoms promote sex for reasons other than procreation and therefore are against condoms on those grounds. The Pope recently clarified that if people are going to choose to engage in "sin" (as defined by the Catholic church i.e. recreational sex) then using a condom may be considered the lesser of two evils if there is a risk of the transmission of disease. But they haven't altered their fundamental viewpoint that sex should be for procreation only between two (heterosexual) married adults.

So I hope that clarifies a bit what I was talking about with atrocities. To sum it up, someone doing something in the name of religion doesn't resolve them of their personal responsibility for their actions. In many cases those actions are motivated by reasons other than religious reasons (in other words, people are just using religion as the excuse). In other cases, their narrow interpretation of the religions teachings are what I would call "extreme" (suicide bombers for instance).

This brings us to your other point, which is what to do about people who have extreme views? I wasn't offended by this video because of the religion it was attacking. I was offended by this video because it is tacitly approving disrespecting people because of their beliefs. It approves of belittling people and treating them with condescension for their beliefs. I still hold that even people with extreme views need to be treated with respect--they are no less human beings despite their misguided views. We need to separate the views from the person. We can and should point out the problems with extreme or misguided beliefs. We need to be patient but persistent. And we need to keep an open mind. It's far to easy to take the attitude "I'm right and my opponent is wrong" and miss out on areas where you both agree.

So yes, I still would have downvoted if the video called followers of Zeus idiots. That isn't going to accomplish anything but to add more intolerance and hatred to a world that is already seething with both. You said:

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns

I absolutely agree with that, but I disagree with your sentiment that we should call them idiots. If the followers of Zeus are advocating human sacrifices then by all means we need to criticize the idea. We can do that, though, without being intentionally disrespectful to the people involved. However, as @mgittle pointed out, some people may feel disrespected anyway because their beliefs are tied so closely to their identity.

@SDGundamX

I'm still curious if you would have been offended if the video called believers in Zeus and Poseidon idiots. Is it belief in itself (any belief lacking empirical evidence against it) that you think should be shielded from intolerance or is it beliefs shared by many people? If I called someone who believed in Zeus a complete nutter, would that offend you? If it made them happy and comfortable with their lives.

I'm slightly confused by the multiverse angle, I'm not sure how the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a bigger likelihood of existing in another universe (as a magical being always existing without evolving into place), I guess it's possible to speculate in a universe that functions in a way that gives rise to Him, but how does that contradict the observations made on how this universe functions?

About the atrocities, I think that we still have atrocities going on today. Just take the deaths of millions of Africans from AIDS because they were taught not to use condoms. You probably think this is an atrocity, but it's bought with money pumped into the catholic church from millions of believers, most of them I would assume moderates, that lend their indirect support to the continuation of these teachings (although lately Ive heard the Pope has changed his mind, a bit too late for all those who are dead). And yes, the Church might be separate from the belief, but its built up on a base of belief and given power and cover by believers. And in 20 years we will hear the same story again "that was then, this is now, I agree that was an atrocity but now we're rid of all that, I don't believe in that, nobody I knows believes in that anymore". And then on to the next decision that affects other people negatively. And as such religion is always safe, the atrocities are always in the past and criticism can be deflected or ignored.

Look, I feel as I'm rambling but my basic point is this: Either you have good reasons for believing in something, or you don't. What makes someone happy might _seem_ right for him or her, but as a species we owe our continued survival and common well-being to realize our limits and overcome them. One such limit is that as pattern-seekers we encounter false positives all the time (this surely benefited us very early in our development). In ancient times a flood must mean the God's are angry. A bad harvest must mean the field is cursed. A modern version would be feeling religion gives our life meaning and happiness and must therefor contain some deeper truth. I simply cannot see how this follows.

Realizing someone is making claims based on flawed arguments we owe it to voice our opinions and concerns, even if harshly as in calling someone an idiot.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
With regards to Elvis (or 9/11 conspiracy, "birthers," the Apollo mission conspiracy theories, and so one) I think there actually is more than enough evidence--empirical evidence--to disprove the claims.
With regards to any deity, I've already said I'm an atheist (i.e. I don't believe in them). But that does not mean they do not exist (actually, if you subscribe to the multiverse model of the universe then you could even go so far as to say it is likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist somewhere, though not necessarily in our universe. ). It simply means that they don't meet my own personal burden of proof to warrant belief.
In regards to your next point, I think we need to separate religious belief from actions taken in the name of religion. Many faithful and non-faithful alike would label those acts you listed above as atrocities. Just because someone happens to be religious in no way means they are going to start condoning those acts you listed. And the reasons those things happen extends far beyond religion--we can't examine those acts without also examining the historical and socio-cultural contexts in which they occur. To merely look at, for instance, suicide bombers from a religious perspective seems rather simplistic to me given the historical, cultural, and political events that have led up to the idea terrorist acts are a valid tool for applying political pressure.
I've said this before (in other threads) but to me religion is a tool. Any tool can be turned into an improvised weapon. And that is what I believe has happened in those cases you described. It's clear religion can be used for great good or great evil. I think it is also clear the major monotheistic religions are going to have to change going into the future. They are going to have to be re-conceptualized to maximize the potential good and minimize or (if possible) downright eliminate the potential bad effects. Here is one book that has already called for such a re-conceptualization for Christianity (haven't read the book, by the way though the premise sounds interesting... check out the reviews).

My dad is an atheist. My mom is a theist but isn't too fond of the Catholic church/faith under which she was raised.

I was raised Catholic and did a little Sunday School in my younger days, but going to mass was quite rare. Easter morning was really the only time we went. My grandmothers would each drag me with them now and then, but that wasn't at all a regular thing.

I suspect the author of that article is right on with his speculation about why people claim numbers that are so far off. Many probably think they go far more often than they actually do and many probably also think it reflects badly on them to say anything but "every Sunday".

It's like being asked if you brush your teeth twice every day. You're going to say yes because you don't want to seem unsanitary, and you probably think you rarely miss a brushing anyway, but the reality is that you probably go to bed without brushing more often than you realize just because you're tired or lazy.

Some comments:

1) "Idolators" really doesn't refer to followers of Judaism or Christians. Idolatry was outlawed in the Ten Commandments. That being said, there's a whole lotta bowin' and genuflectin' in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, that's NOT what was meant by 'idolators'. It referred to the pagan/animistic precursors of Islam, and it called for a zero tolerance policy toward those who were not 'people of the book'. So effective was this that there really are none around today.

2) If I read him right, he's calling for Crusade. I mean, all those guys were fighting defensive wars, and they managed to drive the Muslim invasion away from their doorsteps. However, the reason WHY they were fighting in Vienna and Constantinople and Lepanto was that Charles Martel stopped them at Tours, then let them walk away--keep all of Spain, in fact. Now all this seems to ignore that there was a whole lot of tit-for-tat fighting going on. They'd attack Christian Europe, and Christian Europe would attack them right back. In almost all cases, the conflict was couched in a religious context, but was really more of a geopolitical struggle. The only thing that could stop this struggle is the aforementioned Crusade, except this one would end with two significant cities in the Arabian Peninsula wiped off the map. The thing is--he tells us what might help, but he doesn't for a moment suggest what we could do in the modern context. This is the worst kind of 'expert'--someone who will freely share all the problems, and say that the solutions are quite apparent, and then fail to share what those solutions might be.

3) I've had several students over the years (I taught high school) actively try to convert me to Islam. I'd listen to them, because it was something about which they were passionate, and you never want to dampen their spirits. I would then pull out a map, and show them the growth of Islam. I'd ask them how it got from Mecca to Tours in 100 years. Inevitably they'd come up with some wonderful fairy tale about how people would hear the words of the Prophet, and convert on the spot. I then pointed out that they pretty much cut their way across North Africa, and swept into Spain, and if not for Charles Martel, Christianity might have been wiped off the earth. Did they think that Martel was the first person to say, "No, thanks?" This usually made them quite uncomfortable, because what followed that period was a time of (relative) peace in an area not known for its stability. "How many people honestly and openly chose Islam, do you think?" Again, they'd get uncomfortable. Is Islam all about peace? Sure it is--as long as Islam is on top. But that's pretty much the story with Christianity, right? That's the source of all this talk about America being a "Christian" nation. It seems to have little to do with actual tenets of faith, and everything to do with BRAND IDENTITY.

The real question, then, is this: How many modern Muslims are willing to go back to the old way of doing things? Damn few, it turns out. That's what this whole "perversion" thing is about. Those who would ignore EVERYTHING the modern world offers and KILL PEOPLE to get it are, in fact, very few in numbers, but the fruits of this modern world allow small groups of determined people to unleash mayhem. People like that can be found in every faith, political party, and ideology. The idea that their way might not be the right way scares the hell out of them, and they'd do anything to feel absolutely sure. How do we fight this? How have we ever fought ignorance? Knowledge and time. Crusade never works.

The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.