The Holy Quran Experiment.

spot on re casus, but if I hadn’t added wars, perhaps only you would have understood it.. The tautology was necessary

I always think you should think the best of your audience – and failing that they seem to have pretty good google skills.

Nice bit of smug condescension btw…

A bene placito. (I looked that up)

Those on the Christian religious side seem not to understand how centuries of religious establishment entitlement, the use of religion as causus belli for wars; the religious violence in the Balkans, in Ireland, in Africa; the interference of popes in AIDS health issues and liberation theology, the profound 20th century links between Catholicism, Fascism and Organised Crime, not to mention their treatment of children and poor women; leave many of us laughing when they attempt to differentiate themselves from Islam.

Take a book of dubious origin, interpreted by men who want power and admit no uncertainties, and populations for whom uncertainty and complexity is too difficult, and you get a lot of what’s going on, and the psychopathology of religion.

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don’t be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug “it wasn’t us”…

FFS.

In order to have written what you just have, you have to have ignored or disbelieved everything I wrote above.

When you say

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don’t be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug “it wasn’t us”…

It is like saying to a medieval historian

‘And after hundreds of years of doing nothing but wreaking violence and death across the European continent, don’t be surprised if us moderns get annoyed and rather strident about your smug defence of Medieval people.’

It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw in which, in the first panel, a woman sits down with her psychiatrist, who asks what the problem is. In the second panel, he squirts ink on her dress. In the third panel, after she explodes in anger at having had her clothes ruined, the psychiatrist writes in his notes ‘Patient has anger issues’.

If you have decided, based on some sort of truth, that religion is the cause of [fill in the blank], or that the Catholic Church is responsible for [fill in the blank], then whatever is said in response, you will just be able to keep saying the same thing.

Again, I certainly don’t believe that the Church or religion should be above criticism, and believe firmly that any attempt to suggest otherwise would be utterly ridiculous. What I think is necessary, though, is some accuracy, balance, and understanding in making criticism and hearing the response.

“It is like saying to a medieval historian “except for the bit where all the religious ills he pointed to were modern issues.

And after hundreds of years of religious hegemony, don’t be surprised if us atheists get annoyed and rather strident about your smug “it wasn’t us”..

Er what?

What wasn’t who?

And I don’t think anyone on this thread is trying to differentiate themselves from Islam.

“It is like saying to a medieval historian “except for the bit where all the religious ills he pointed to were modern issues.

It’s called an ‘analogy‘.

I get that you think it is an analogy but it on first sight appears to be a false one.

Not a lot of balance coming from you SaxonRider. You’ve spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

A Lord’s Resistance Army Commander says this:

Lord’s Resistance Army is just the name of the movement, because we are fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Ten Commandments of God. That is true – because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to kill the innocent, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.

Tony Blair and George Bush both claim faith told them to invade Iraq, numerous right-wing Christian terrorists kill people in America on a regular basis, and religion was the justification for ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. There are also frequent instances of rounding up and massacring Muslims by Christians in Nigeria (and vice versa). Never mind horrific historical instances of genocide directly lead by the Catholic Church. But no, religion and more particularly Christianity has nothing to answer for.

People are happy to claim the good that religion does but when bad stuff is done in the name of religion (and more particularly Christianity) suddenly you can’t attribute it to them.

Not a lot of balance coming from you SaxonRider. You’ve spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

Really? I thought I was saying that, while religion (and more particularly Christianity)’s responsibility for evil and suffering in the world should always be acknowledged, to cast it as any sort of sole cause, and to attribute to it characteristics and behaviours which go beyond its reach and responsibilities, is unhelpful and inaccurate.

How is this tantamount to saying that religion, and more particularly Christianity, has ‘pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history’?

To be clear, I am perfectly happy that religion should accept responsibility for its failures; I just don’t think that, when suggestions and accusations are made against religion, they are always well-informed.

You’ve spent this entire thread pretending that religion (and more particularly Christianity) has pretty much never been responsible for anything bad, throughout history.

He hasn’t in the least – here’s a quote:

“Finally, I don’t deny in any way, shape, or form the appalling, despicable, and utterly tragic abuses and massacres undertaken at times during the crusades.”

Tony Blair and George Bush both claim faith told them to invade Iraq

I don’t think that’s accurate either. My memory suggests that Blair was quoted as saying he ‘asked’ God which was the right thing to do. That’s pretty different.

Religion had very little, if anything, to, do with Blair and Bush’s decisons. They where driven by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Sadam’s attempt to blow up Bush senior with a car bomb and 9/11

God will judge me, PM tells Parkinson

Tony Blair is reconciled to the prospect that God and history will eventually judge his decision to go to war with Iraq, and says his decision, like much of his policymaking, was underpinned by his Christian faith.

Mr Blair made the remarks in an appearance on Parkinson to be broadcast tonight, in which he spoke of the struggle with his conscience to do the right thing because people’s lives are at stake.

Asked about Iraq, the prime minister said: “Well, I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that judgment is made by other people.”

Questioned further, he added: “If you believe in God, [the judgment] is made by God as well.”

Michael Parkinson asked: “So will you pray to God when you make a decision like that?” Mr Blair said merely: “Well, I don’t want to get into something like that.”

Unlike George Bush, who said God told him to launch the Iraq campaign, Mr Blair has taken care to keep his faith away from political discourse. He once bridled visibly when asked by Jeremy Paxman if he and Mr Bush prayed together. But he confirmed the thesis put forward by more than one biographer that it was his rediscovery of religion while at Oxford University which led him into politics.

God and Tony Blair

Does faith have a role in policy? The prime minister says yes.

The Yale seminar — the first of three Blair will teach — follows the unveiling last summer of his main project: the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which seeks to foster greater understanding among people of various religions by involving them in collaborative projects, such as development efforts and dialogue. The U.S. operations of the foundation will be headquartered at Yale.

Blair’s goal is one of those simply stated yet vast undertakings: to make religion a force for good as globalization mixes together people of different cultures and faiths. Some people of faith have welcomed Blair’s entrance into this arena; others have questioned whether, with his controversial past, he’s the right man for the job. But in his classes at Yale and in a recent interview, Blair has begun to give voice to a belief that faith can, and perhaps should, have a role in public decisions.

Thanks JHJ I think that backs up my point re Blair.

Yes forum pay attention only the Muslims do bad things due to their religion as it says so in their book

Dont mention the Catholics and the holocaust, the Lords resistance Army Jews creating a homeland from the hands of terrorists then honouring them or christians discriminating against gay people as only Muslims do bad things at the behest of their God and Bush and Blair praying together and agreeing before any vote is a mere coincidence

Jambolloks innit.

jambalaya

Religion had very little, if anything, to, do with Blair and Bush’s decisons. They where driven by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Sadam’s attempt to blow up Bush senior with a car bomb and 9/11

Not that it’ll bother you, but you’ve just gone down in my estimation jambalaya. I had you pegged as some kind of right wing, Britain First/EDL light nutter who loves trolling the lefties who very well might be on Israel’s payroll to just …..troll. I iz disappoint.

Bonus points if anyone can tell me what role George HW Bush was playing before becoming Vice President of the Reagan Administration which began the support of Saddam which continued into HW’s presidency…

CIA ‘helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran’ in 1988 under Ronald Reagan

Yes forum pay attention only the Muslims do bad things due to their religion as it says so in their book

That’s not what he said, stop shit-stirring.

There’s Jambybollocks, but there’s also Junkybollocks 🙂

@jimjam feel free to analyse my statement you quoted for evidence of trolling or indeed right wing / Britian First / EDL leanings

As my very learned American friend said, “the Bataclan is France and Europe’s 9/11. It will change everything”

A quick look at the history of the religious conflicts in Scotland during the late 1600s should be enough to convince anyone that the best way to fight fire is not to pour more petrol on by creating martyrs out of innocents.

The result is like the spread of a plague.

molgrips are you trolling now or just very confused?

If I’m confused, please help me out by explaining.

To be fair, I think it’s an interesting discussion 😳 We can all agree that Religion has had a very heavy influence on the world SO of course we should agree that it also needs to take a very large portion of the responsibility of our regrets when looking backwards.

I always think religion still gets way more respect than it should, why does it get a free pass?

If a builder wrote a book on ‘how to build houses’ and 20 years later all those houses fell down, we would say that book is not the way to build houses AND we would ask ‘why’ that book was allowed/encouraged to be taught in schools and preached in every corner of society. If people continue to build their houses in such a way we would call them crazy, take them to court for endangering others and try and stamp out this type of building practice. This is how the education system works, isn’t it?
Surely it is as simple as that.. the thousands of religions out there have all been de-bunked, they are wrong.

The history of religion within society is remarkable and interesting (@saxonrider 8) ) but we really should be making sure that any education of future generations clearly draws a line between the unknown and true fiction. If you teach lies and confusion then I think it likely you will end up with lot’s of confused liars.
Should teaching one of those debunked religions to a child be considered abuse or a punishable offence?

That’s not what he said, stop shit-stirring.

There’s Jambybollocks, but there’s also Junkybollocks

His first post on this thread- Do you want me to get others from other threads where he does say that or will that do? hEnce you are either very confused or trolling comment.

You could just ask him you know I am sure he will be delighted to explain it again but really that is what he thinks. You could ask him to talk about christian terrorism and watch as he cannot and refuses or you could just get it wrong and say I am talking bollocks molly.

He really does think the quran justifies all that and when asked to produce the evidence he declined because you can be killed for criticizing the quran.

Pay attention molly

Indeed OP. As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.

He says it all the time so indeed do pay attention Molly and dont defend the troll.

We can all agree that Religion has had a very heavy influence on the world SO of course we should agree that it also needs to take a very large portion of the responsibility of our regrets when looking backwards.

That’s very difficult indeed to prove in any meaningful way. Most conflicts could be considered religious but could easily be considered to have subverted religion for some other goal.

The only real truth is the mendacity of people. If religion had never been invented I doubt things would have been any different.

As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.

As a Catholic, are you aware of this?

I appreciate it doesn’t necessarily reflect the faith as a whole.

These are excerpts from a book by Clive Driscoll, in Pursuit of Truth:

Former Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll is most famous for being the man who finally secured convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a case previously mired by claims of institutional racism and corruption. For Clive, it was the pinnacle of a 35-year career with the world’s most famous police force, the Metropolitan Police Service.

More here:

Lambeth Part 4 – Clive Driscoll The Truth about Child Sexual Abuse in Lambeth[/url]

And a BBC link for those who think this is all from la la land:

Metropolitan Police officer was moved ‘from child abuse inquiry’

Okay, I’m lost now.

We can all agree that Religion has had a very heavy influence on the world SO of course we should agree that it also needs to take a very large portion of the responsibility of our regrets when looking backwards.

That’s very difficult indeed to prove in any meaningful way. Most conflicts could be considered religious but could easily be considered to have subverted religion for some other goal.

The only real truth is the mendacity of people. If religion had never been invented I doubt things would have been any different.

@molgrips. I can agree with some of that (I don’t think what I said is hard to prove, I didn’t mention conflicts and not sure the ONLY real truth is the mendacity of people but I don’t think they were your main points so not important.)

Yes I agree that with hindsight the dominant religions can also take a very large portion of responsibility for the positives. Nobody had/has a crystal ball so we can never know if things would have been better/worse or different.

Going forward, what we DO know is that these de-bunked made up teachings had and still have a large effect and we know it is wrong to teach a naive mind such lies regardless of the outcome. We must trust in our education and leave these old books behind, new books will be created and de-bunked until perhaps one day science and religion meet and everyone can live happily ever after.