Historically in America porn's biggest foe has always been the merchants of Salvation. The so called religious right. People who sell their version of God's word for profit. A close examination of this relationship reveals glaring flaws in their judgement when thier philosophy is contrasted with that of pornagraphy...
Religion has been, and continues to be, the cause of a great many deaths around the world. Religious ferver causes otherwise law abiding and peacful people to commit heinous acts of violence against their fellow human beings. Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Israel/Palistine, Iraq, Kashmere, the list goes on and on. And that's only recent history. Looking back through the ages, from the slaughter of Jewish citizens in Germany to all the way back to the Crusades and Spanish Inquesition, religion was at the heart of torture, rape, and murder.
Compare the precident of religion with that of pornagraphy. The ability to freely express ourselves sexually has been spurred on by the proliferation of porn. People are having better, safer, cleaner sex than ever before in human history. Females are having orgasms like never before, because men now understand how the female body works. Moreover, because of the visual nature of porn, more women have improved their personal hygene in order to conform to men's expectations. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of men who engage in cunniligus.
The first ammendment protects both religion and porn. It is ironic that the two should have found themselves at odds over the other's existance. However, looking at the pros and cons of each, it is difficult to choose the one which seeks to annihilate the other. Most pornagraphers are not actively seeking the destruction of the Judeo/Christian faith, and would happily accept the dangers of religion were it's proponents not actively seeking their demise...
Stalin managed to be a real monster without the aid of organized religion.
[Link]
matricks Deactivated User
australia 136 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jun 13 2006 : 3:00AM
Lets not forget that most pornstars come from religious backgrounds. Even JENNA JAMESON claims to be of CATHOLIC leaning and so is her husband . Now I have given SHORTGUN STYLES even a bigger reason to despise JENNA J. You are not alone on that one dude!
I am by no means claiming that organized religion is the root of all evil. I am merely comparing it's track record to that of porn.
There are a great many positive aspects to religious faith. Many people's lives have been changed for the better, as they have used it's tenants to improve themselves. Malcom X is a great example of this. Also, the humanitarian efforts of many faith based organizations have cured disease, fed the starving, and quelled conflicts. The quakers, known for their conservatism, were some of the original abolishonists.
Relgion has value, but must be practiced in a such a manner so as to manifest itself as positive action. I feel the same way about porn...
Not really. People just used religion as an excuse. Now you are agreeing with them.
Porn seems to draw an aweful lot of questionable (being polite) people. And that is just the mainstream industry. Porn, in its entirety also includes actual torture/murder with sexual themes, bestiality, child porn, etc. Not mainstream porn or what you think of as valid porn? The same might be said about your comments on religion.
To justify your position, you use one sided examples (though true, in part) on religion and porn. Is the other side so damaging to your thesis?
You failed to address the issue of causation . There is no conclusive evidence that porn has a causal effect on murder. Or even child molestation and rape for that matter. They have been blamed on porn, surely, but blame does not equal responsibility.So, give me the other side. Who's point of view am I failing to exemplify, and what are those positions? Your argument is incomplete without examples...
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - Jun 13 2006 : 12:20PM
The two doctrines responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people are communism and naziism. Both are/were anti-religious. Stalin and Mao are two of the 3 biggest butchers of human beings. Hitler being the 3rd. Many people confuse naziism and fascism. Fascism, as practiced by Mussolini, wasn't anti-semitic hence the confusion. Naziism, as practiced by Hitler was anti-semitic. Naziism stood for 'national socialism' and socialism is a left-wing ideology. It's always amazed me that the left, anti-big business, is pro big government. There's nothing I fear more than big government. Which is why I fear the left. I don't like big business, but I fear big government.
Want to confuse a leftist? They want to reduce greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, a by product of oil and coal burning because they believe that global warming is caused by fossil fuel combustion. OK. Propose we begin to build nuclear-power plants to generate electricity. That stops them dead in their tracks.
uhhhh dude, our government is bigger now than it ever has been. Big Brother looms larger now than he ever has. and as far as I can tell, the left aint running the show.
"Compare the precident of religion with that of pornagraphy. The ability to freely express ourselves sexually has been spurred on by the proliferation of porn. People are having better, safer, cleaner sex than ever before in human history. Females are having orgasms like never before, because men now understand how the female body works. Moreover, because of the visual nature of porn, more women have improved their personal hygene in order to conform to men's expectations. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of men who engage in cunniligus."
Did you really address the issue of causation in your argument though? You're going on specious reasoning and making correlations, but is there really a direct statistically significant causal relationship between pornography and the factors you listed. I, for one, would find contributing the typically non-condom, unsafe bodily fluid exchanged-filled pornography to a supposed rise in people having "better, safer, cleaner sex" problematic.
People have historically fought wars over religion. This much is true. The only wars fought over pornography have been in the courtrooms. Both facets serve a function in society and they both inspire certain levels of deviance. In some cases, pornography could actually be seen as a by-product of religion. Overall, it's hard to disagree with an argument where one half of the equation has been a factor in so many deaths and the other half so few. However, it does seem that your argument is predicated upon the belief that pornography is a victimless crime if it's a crime at all.
Porn is all about the body and religion is all about the soul. I personally would prefer to live in a world dominated by sexuality rather than a world dominated by religion but I also think that in many ways, this would be moving from one extreme to the other and there is a profound lack of humanity/spirituality in most porn which would make it as oppressive as religion once was. Just as religion set impossible, inhuman standards of behaviour for its followers to live up to, so too does pornography.
Porn (the body) and religion (the soul) need each other. Each is lacking something that the other offers. This is why you get shamed priests who are caught watching porn in secret and porn stars turning to God.
Nazism is left wing? Sombody needs a refesher course in political science. You have spent WAY too much time listening to the maniacal rantings of draft dodgers like Rush, Michael Savage (aka Michael Wiener) and Bill O'Rielly. That statement is patently false. Liberalism and Facism are diametrically opposed ideologies.
As to the historical accuracy of your Nazism/Communism argument, I (not surprisingly I'm sure) disagree.
13 million dead Native Americans 12 million dead Africans 2 million dead soldiers
That's just right here in the good old U S of A. The genocide of the Indiginous Indians, the transatlantic slave trade and the Revolutionary/Civil/Indian Wars casualties.
European Christians and their decendants have killed more people, started more wars, and attemted genocide more times than any other single group of people in the history of planet earth. And dropped 2 nukes to boot.
The Nazis were Christians. Their anti-Jewish ideology was culled DIRECTLY from the Protastant and Catholic faiths. And, let's not forget the Catholic church's occasisionally tacid and sometimes explicit support of the Nazis.
You sir are living in a FOX news created fantasy land where Liberals are the devils of the world. It just isn't reality.
Kudos to "Shotgun." (No, I am not he, in case anyone was wondering.) Much of the opposition to perfectly legal adult fare comes from a ludicrous moral code that stems from a book written thousands of years by human beings who, by today's standards, were (literally) ignoramuses. I'm talking about, of course, that great fictional work called the Bible, of which secularists seem to know more about than its followers. Society might as well derive its morality from the equally mythological Roman or Greek or Norse Gods. Actually, those guys (and gals) were regular party animals compared to the stern and stuffy monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Who'd ever invite him to a party?
Some people pray. Others masturbate to porn. I would argue that the latter is the more meaningful activity.
I don't need causation any more than you do. I said that religion doesn't cause people to commit any of the crimes you claim it did. People merely use religion as an excuse to commit those crimes. Bigotry justified as religious correctness is still bigotry. The rest is just poor rationalization, like saying "the music made me do it." You were the one that said that religon causes mass killings, progroms, torture, and rape. As you say, blame does not equal responsibility. So find a credible study shows real causation. Nor did I claim that mainstream porn causes any crimes. I said that porn includes these other things that are generally considered crimes. Whether there are commercially available snuff films that are real is truely beyond that point. So my need to show causation simply does not exist.You don't consider child porn as an example of the negative side of porn? I did say that "porn" is more that what exists in the commercial mainstream.
True, but that's because the world's population has grown so much in the industrial age. Plenty of historical wars and pograms have killed a higher proportion of the affected populations.In the case of the Nazis, that's just plain false. Good Nazi party members were _required_ to go to church, and Hitler himself claimed, loudly and at length, to be a good Catholic doing the Lord's Work. As for the commies, their brand of Marxism effectively _was_ a religion, demanding unquestioning adherence to dogma, as it did.Agreed, but I would put Hitler first, personally. Stalin and Mao killed a higher number, but it was a lower proportion of their overall populations.Pure window dressing, the underlying politocal ideology was identical.There was nothing "socialist" about national socialism. Hitler picked that name in a n effort to appeal to trade unionists and other social reformers, before he had the power to just have them killed.Not any more. Green Peace itself has embraced nuclear power (I'd include an URL, but I really don't want to give the idiots any traffic). The times, they are a-changin'...
[Link]
matricks Deactivated User
australia 136 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 2:06AM
Nazis were not christians.They believed in GOD yes,but did not believe in JESUS.They were AGNOSTIC or something like that.Hitler also hated Catholics aswell.
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 4:52AM
Guess what matricks, I don't listen to Rush, Savage, or watch much Bill O'Reilly either. (You spelled his name wrong.) You're 100% correct in pointing out that's it's Europeans and their decendants who've started more wars and killed more people, but Hitler, Stalin, and Mao weren't Christians. If someone is European or of European descent, does that make them a Christian? Hitler in particular, put up with the Lutheran Church (the dominant German Christian sect) because they more or less rolled over and played dead when he threatened the leaders with prison if they didn't agree with the Nazi Party line.
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," -- Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941. "So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," -- Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
Europe has seen a great decline in the influence of Christianity in the last 100 years and they replaced that theology with Marxism, Communism, and Naziism, very anti-human and anti-religious ideologies. I'm not here to defend Christianity, it has some ugly history, the Inquisition comes to mind, but what's replaced it is far worse. Ask an old Russian. They replaced the hated Czars with the Communists and life went from bad to worse. The same can be said for Cuba. They replaced a corrupt and hated Batista with an even corrupter Castro and life went from bad to worse. The Iranians replaced a corrupt and hated Shah with an even worse Ayatollah and life went from bad to worse. Like Churchill once said about democracy--'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.' What's replaced Christianity in Europe is worse than any doctrine the Christians could come up with.
Also, the bigger threat to the porn industry comes from the feminist left and not the religious right. The religious right talks a good game and they use it to raise funds, but they don't do much about the porn industry. Also, many on the left, the ACLU types, are some of the biggest defenders of the porn industry, it's not the left in general that opposes porn, it's the man-hating feminists that do.
For God's sakes folks don't confuse religion with pornography and especially the church, the pornstars and certain political leaders. Dreamer rightly said "Porn is all about the body and religion is all about the soul". I agree 100%.
Well I am an Orthodox Christian and I like watching porn. If I am a sinner or not this is a personal matter and a completely different subject.. I will state something that maybe some of you dont know. Having read the new testament I recall one of its chapters that not only suggests but also imposes frequent sexual contacts for married couples. Christianity and most of religions are not against sex. Of course the religion learship is another story...
Thinking about it overnight, let me amend my one statement to read: "Some people pray. Others masturbate to porn. I would argue that clearly, the latter gives you better results...:)."
Religion and porn is a topic I find endlessly fascinating (and infuriating). Here's an op-ed piece I wrote on the subject for the July 2005 AVN:
Forget Porn, How 'Bout a Task Force on Religious Obscenity
Ever since Bush II’s re-election (“How Can 56 Million People Be So Dumb?” blared a British newspaper the day after), I’ve been watching with increasing concern as W repays the religious right for its political support by catering to their positively un-American agenda such as making church/state separation an endangered species and imposing their extremist beliefs on the rest of us. In furtherance of that latter goal, of course, is the RR’s pressure on the Justice Department to “crack down” on what they consider to be obscenity — consenting adults having sex on camera for the viewing pleasure of other consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms or hotel rooms. Ostensibly toward that end, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has formed an Obscenity Task Force. Now all of this of late keeps bringing to mind that for-the-ages expression of righteous indignation from the movie Network, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore,” because the hypocrisy of the situation is infuriating. Truth is, I simply see religion as much more obscene than even the raunchiest of Adult fare (which I’m not conceding is obscene, by the way), let alone something as innocuous as say, Janet Jackson’s bared boob or more recently, Paris Hilton’s sizzling pre-nom worthy tease for Carl’s Jr. And that’s not as extreme a statement as many of you might think. My trusty American Heritage dictionary defines obscene as “offensive to accepted standards of decency” and “offensive to the senses,” and on both counts, to my way of thinking, religion fits the bill. Obscene is also defined as “inciting lustful feelings,” and there too, religion is a match, maybe not in a sexually lustful way — although I’d be willing to bet that, for instance, Jesus, is the object of many a believer’s sexual fantasies — but certainly in its blood lust equivalent. Just think of the multitudes of people slaughtered in the name of God over the centuries during, among other fun events, the Crusades, the witch burnings, the Inquisition, the genocide of the indigenous, various religious wars, etc., etc., up to and including 9-11, carried out by a bunch of Muslim fanatics convinced that killing thousands of innocent “infidels” was their instant meal ticket to Paradise? If that’s not obscene, I don’t know what is. Other offensive religious practices include Christianity in particular, instilling fear of eternal damnation in millions of humans from its inception, and indoctrinating them to believe that without God, even as infants, they are wretched, graceless, “fallen” creatures cursed with original sin. Is it any coincidence that so many people have self-esteem issues? “My own view on religion is that … I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race,” wrote esteemed rationalist philosopher Bertrand Russell way back in 1930. It still holds true today. Religion has also frequently been the enemy of social progress with such stands as, to cite a few contemporary examples, the Roman Catholic Church’s ludicrous no birth control policy (especially catastrophic in impoverished, overpopulated Third World countries), and right here at home, the religious right’s campaigns to relegate gays to second class citizenship status and to oppose stem cell research that has the potential to cure debilitating diseases. And these people call themselves “pro-life”? Then there’s the RR’s positively Stalinist campaign to rewrite the history of this country, putting forth the chilling fraud that America was founded as a Christian nation, so as to eviscerate church/state separation and establish a theocracy. Wrong. America was clearly founded as a secular nation, many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Adams and Madison included, firmly on the record as being anti-Christian. Doubters merely need to count the number of references to God in the Constitution — zero. It’s a Godless document. And as part of their agenda to turn the U.S. into something akin to the Western equivalent of Iran, the evangelicals are intent on conning public school students out of an important component of their real-world education by once again attempting to slander and assassinate the character of the solid science of evolution (which — big surprise — undermines their beliefs) and replace it with the religious propaganda/pseudo-science/obvious fairy tale of creationism or its more stealth name, Intelligent Design. Sort of the modern-day descendent of the sixteenth century persecution of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church for daring to endorse the idea that the — gasp! — Earth revolved around the sun and was not, in fact, the center of the universe as put forth in the Bible. The list goes on and on, but certainly one more offense that must be mentioned, given AVN’s demographic, is how religion has demonized sex —a stance Russell calls “the worst feature of the Christian religion … morbid and unnatural.” All the more so since the notion of God and what he/she/it considers moral are strictly matters of faith, which cannot be empirically proven. Not a good idea to base policy, be it on sex, gays, science, wars, etc., on what could very well be a myth. Absurd, actually. Given all this, isn’t it a no-brainer that religion much better fits the definition of obscenity than for example, a simple innocent facial, or hell, a bukkake for that matter? Of course it is. So how `bout Gonzales form a Task Force on Religious Obscenity? Hey, we can always dream, er, mentally masturbate, can’t we? - Mike Ramone
snip the religious right has "crucified" porn. Max hardcore, JM productions...etc...so you might not like those companies/people...but it's porn none the less...paint it what ever color you like...porn is porn. the religious right is the down fall of freedom and American society. also, the religious right also has tried to censor music as well. the PMRC
mod note: cut out the personal attacks.
Edited by - hardware on 6/14/2006 4:58:04 PM
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 5:24PM
I had to debate to myeslf whether or not I would even contribute to this... well... debate. As much as I enjoy a provocative discussion as much as the next guy, this obviously agenda-driven discourse does not fit the bill. I see no point whatseover to this thread except as a means of strirring contention and controversy, which I highly suspect was the author's ultimate intention. I cannot count the number of times I have had similar conversations on this selfsame topic with other people, and it never turns out well. All it does it make people angry at each other and oftentimes not even want to speak to one another again. To be quite honest, I've come to the conclusion that these types of discussions serve no purpose unless the people involved are truly open to giving consideration to the opposite side, and let's be honest, people aren't, as is apparent by many of the various posts on this thread, including Mike Ramone's propogandist editorial that I can't imagine any reputable media venue (which AVN definitely isn't) publishing. To repeat a saying by my mother which definitely holds true, "It is a waste of time arguing religion with people because you're not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours. So why even bother talking about it?" Although I fully agree with this adage of wisdom I heard growing up, there are some ridiculous and erroneous statements made on this thread that I feel compelled to address.
Shotgun Styles wrote
No it doesn't. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, while specifically protecting freedom of religion, provides no protection whatsoever for pornography, neither does pornography fall under the protection of any of the Five Freedoms of the First Amendment. The protection of pornography is mainly a judicial issue, and is currently protected on the basis of Supreme Court rulings of obscenity. As improbable as it may be, the Supreme Court could rule at any time that mainstream pornography is too obscene to be publicly distributed, and the porn industry would have quite a battle on its hands. The Supreme Court in the past has indeed determined that a ban on pornography (not including certain niches such as child pornography, etc.) would be unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court has overturned its own rulings before (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson), so it is always possible, though highly unlikely.I think people like Mike Ramone are a living contradiction that argument.
chaotic_23 wrote
Is it just me, or does anyone else get disturbed at hearing debates on the religious leanings of ruthless despots and genocidal megalomaniacs? So what were the religious leanings, if any, of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung? WTF CARES!!? They were all sadistic dictators who are now long dead. Yet, all people can find to do is debate what their religious beliefs were or weren't? Grow the hell up! No one religion (atheism included) has the market cornered on tyrannical or evil ruffians. There are cruel people in the world and there always have been all throughout history, regardless of religion. The sooner people get off of trying to use religion as a scapegoat to further their own anti-religious agendas, the better.
Mike Ramone wrote
With as much of the stupidity going in the world presently, which is perpetuated by supposedly advanced human beings, I find it ironic that people of today would find any grounds to label people of the past as ignoramuses. These people may not have been as technologically and scientifically advanced as we are, but in many ways, they were much more cognitively advanced. This is not to imply that everything they thought was right, but the point is that if you go back and study their writings and culture, you can see that they did at least think, which is alot more than I can say for most people now.Actually, from my experience, I've found that this is a lie that secularists just tell themselves in order to feed their own superiority complexes which beguile them into believing the falsehood that they are somehow smarter than the rest of the world. I hate to break it to you, but you're not.Wrong. The "Founding Fathers" were not "anti-Christian." If they were, reason follows that they would have outlawed Christianity. To the contrary, they were indeed Christian. If you disagree, I would really like to see some proof to the statement that they were not. Since Christianity was the dominant faith of the Colonies, they were, by default, all Christians, despite whatever beliefs they may have held that would not have been considered parallel to traditional Christian doctrine. Even so, they attended church regularly, and often invoked Scriptural references during their speeches.Simply because the U.S. Constitution does not make reference to God does not qualify it as a "Godless document," as the two do not at all mean the same thing. There is a good reason that there are no supernatural or religious references made in the Constitution- because it has nothing to do with theology. That's just like if I'm having a discussion with someone about my favorite basketball team, I'm not going to start talking about my religion at the same time. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. So are people "godless" because they don't go around talking about God in contexts that have nothing to do with religion? Any rational person knows that is not the case. However, I suppose you adhere to the assinine notion that simply because the "Founding Fathers" did not impose their personal religious beliefs directly into the establishment of law of the land, then they must, therefore, have not been religious. That is one of the most ludicrous arguments made among people who obviously know no better. Mind you, that the document which led up to the founding of this nation and which preceded the Constitution- the Declaration of Independence contains several references to the Almighty. I should also point out that this selfsame document was penned by none other Thomas Jefferson himself, one of those "Founding Fathers" you previously falsely identified as being "anti-Christian."I wonder if you realize how you and other such secularists of your cloth sound so similar to many of these extremists who you detest. The only difference is that your insane extremism is from the opposite end, but otherwise is basically just the same.
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 6:09PM
The doctrine of 'separation of church and state' does not exist in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote these words to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, attempting to calm their fears that the State of Connecticut would decree the Anglican faith as the 'state religion' as was done by the State of Virgina and England. The Baptists had suffered religious persecution for their faith and Jefferson used the words of the famous Baptist minister Roger Williams who said, 'the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall..' This is what Jefferson wrote in part,
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverance that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Jefferson personal letter ensured that the governments hands were tied from interfering with, or in any way controlling the affairs or decisions of the churches in America.
That's where 'the separation of church and state' came from.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 7:25PM
1. Religion is, and has always been, a tool for controlling the masses and consolidating power. In all likelyhood it is, or at least has been, instrumental in the establishment of social structures. A society needs some level of hierarchy to function orderly, without it there would be chaos.
A population also needs some level of individual sacrifice to be able to survive. If all individuals were pure hedonists, no one would produce, reproduce and do what's otherwise needed to ensure the survival of the population. Unlike animals, humans have an ego, which complicates matters significantly. Humans aren't willing to sacrifice without a reason. Religion creates that reason, it creates the necessary "greater good" or "supreme being/force" that makes people willing to sacrifice, to devote themselves and pursue other things than instant personal gratification. Instead of God, communism established the fellowship (through the state) as the greater good, nazism the great nation/people and lebensraum, but it all boils down to the same thing: Humans need to believe in something bigger than themselves to balance their ego. Without it, in some form or another, I doubt a society could function.
One can probably argue that we will inevitably reach a level of understanding and self-consciousness that at some point in time will make religion an anachronism, reach a level of knowledge that makes belief redundant, but I don't think we are quite there yet. As individuals perhaps, many can function perfectly well without any beliefs (or perhaps not, we all probably act on belief in some form or another), but as societies, not yet.
Has religion caused many wars, deaths and atrocities? Oh yes. Would there have been any less wars, deaths and atrocities without religion? I seriously doubt it.
2. Porn and sexual liberation has undoubtedly helped countless people to improve their quality of life. At the same time, the argument that sexual liberation is a threat to the family structure is a resonable one. So, do we really need the family structure, or could we survive as pure individualists? I'm not sure, but I think it is somewhat of a balancing act. I believe that the sexual liberation, including the porn, we have seen proliferate during the last generation or so has been mostly positive. As has the other forms of increasing focus on the experience or enjoyment of life. But at the same time it can probably reach a point where it is damaging to the society. Again, there needs to be a balance between the ego, hedonism and the maxiom of self-gratification, and the necessary "duties" we need to perform to make our societies functional and sustainable. I enjoy porn, sex, entertainment, alcohol and the other pleasures of life, but I also know there's more to it than only that.
[Link]
matricks Deactivated User
australia 136 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jun 14 2006 : 9:15PM
You guys need to calm down and be grateful you are living in a christian majority country. If you were in a MUSLIM nation,you would have no rights to speek your minds like this. The christian right only talk to get attention,otherwise they are harmless people.Its best to ignore them.
matricks, I would say that is more because many of those countries are military dictatorships or religious states. Then again the Mongols, Turks (Seljuk or Ottoman), and Tamerlane set back education and development back a few centuries rather than Christianity being more open to individual rights.
I thought there was wording that the government shall not establish a state religion? And the courts have built on that to essentially create seperation of church and state? There is much convincing writing that the Founding Fathers assumed that God would be a consideration in deliberations because everybody in their world was Christian.
While my concerns for the environment, have often found the trailheads somewhere left of center, I say bring on the microwaves. I'd prefer the occasional 20 mile meltdowns of burnt toast, than to the slow, stifling stew, of a giant crockpot, that leaves us the rump roast, and dinosaurs with the last laugh.
The USA is only responsible for about 3-4 million of them, the Spaniards killed a hell of a lot more.Source, please?The reason that those countries are repressive hell-holes, isn't because they're muslim, it's because they're backwards. There are plenty of miserable third world hell-holes with majority christian populations, and they're just as repressive.No, what makes them a christian is them publically claiming to be. Us poor atheists can't be bothered with figuring out who the "real" christians are; if Hitler, the Grand Dragon of the KKK, or just some random serial killer, _CLAIM_ to be christians, we have no choice but to take them at their word.I'd dearly love to see a citation for those quotes. I can easily find a dozen others where Hitler loudly claimed to be a christian.Actually, all three of those examples are false. In every case, the "new boss" was more popular (in the short term, at least) with the peasantry than the "old boss", if only because the new regime sanctioned the masses yearning for revenge. Sure, they stagnated, while freer countries advanced, but things weren't _worse_ than they were before; they just never got _better_.Right, in a private letter where he, as one of the framers of the constitution, EXPLAINED WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS.I don't really care all that much, but if someone posts erroneous information, I'm going to correct them.
Shotgun Styles, I am taking no person attack on you in my response. I have read your posts and somewhat see where you are coming from. Many people have died in the name of religion, people have died or been oppressed in the name of Christianity. I shall not deny that, but one thought that I have is that as I think eluded to by someone else, you are restricting pornography to 'that pornography that does not hurt people' yet not defining Christianity as "those that believe in forgiveness and do unto others as you would have others do to you, or love your neighbor as yourself, or do good to those who hurt you". Your definition of pornography seems to automatically exclude child pornography or any type of forced pornography, and definitely the sex slave trade. Also, the argument can be raised, though truthfully I don't how to verify it, that many who killed in supposedly in the name of religion were inspired more by the possibility of raping the defeated. To put a twist on the whole thing, abstinance has killed noone.
Also, as was eluded to, a comparison between religion and porn may not be appropriate. (I lost my train of thought on this one.)
Your post has inspired me, in a chain of inspirations. I have seen posts that condemn religion and even specifically Christianity for all of the evils done in this world. I have been doing some researching, thoug far from an expert, on genocide of people based on cleansing the evils of religion. I have not found the answers in that regards, but If anyone is really concerned about the murders of mankind they my take some time to evaluate the following which comes from RJ Rummel's Death by Government :
First let me note the issue of bias. Rummel's conclusion is that democide, murder by government outside of war, is least prevalent when democracy prevails. I have read nothing that suggests he is explicityly pro-Christian or pro-capitalism. In fact, he does often mention slaughters in the name of Christianity. I am not certain of his religious beliefs, thus far.
According to him, the regimes that have done the most killing are:
Stalin: 42 million Mao: 37 million Hitler: 21 million
The regime that did the most killing in the greatest per capita in the least amount of time was:
Pol-Pot: 8% of the population killed per year. Over 2 million people killed in four years.
I do not think the commonality here was religion, and highly doubt that it was Christianity. Apparently Hitler did not think much of Christianity. I know Stalin had some type of Christian background, but I also know that he persecuted at least some Christian churches. I believe that Mao was opposed to religion, and highly doubt he ever declared himself to be Christian nor massacred people in the name of Christianity. Pol-Pot banned religion.
People can correct me if I am wrong, but here are things that I find common amoung the great killers of the 20th century:
Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot embraced Marxism. Some may object that they distorted Marxism (I hope they give the same credence to distortion of Christianity).
But, in any case, I doubt that anyone would object to the statement that the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot were anti-capitalist. Possibly more objectionable: according to FA Hayek, the persecution of the Jews was closely linked to an anti-capitalist mentality. (This is not to say that opposing capitalism leads to mass murder, but of course I hope that others not assume that being a Christian leads to mass murder.)
Personally, I am very, very cautious of anything resembling socialism(and YES, that includes religion based socialism such as the wars on drugs, prostitution, and pornography.), gun control, and nationalism (I suspect..though I haven't checked the official definition). (Note: I am actually cautious of democracy, depending upon how you define it.)
I don't know where you get your numbers from, but you may take note that your numbers are over a couple of centuries and are still less than the dead under the regimes of Stalin and Mao exclusively. Also, the 2 million dead soldiers? Didn't some of those soldiers die for causes that you would unequivcally support? How do you share the blame? (Sorry, for some reason I just could not find the right way to word those last two sentences.)
Rummel's book focuses on the 20th century, but does devote one chapter to pre-20th century democide. Here are some selected figures:
Deaths resulting of slavery of African-Americans: 17 million (though it should be mentioned that this number is not exclusively in the United States nor in North America.) Democide of American Indians: 14 million Yet, combined these deaths are barely more than the deaths by Mongols: 30 million. (Admittedly I do not know the religious composition of the Mongols, though I doubt Christian.)
A side note: It seems to me that pornography has not flourished in socialist economies.
Some may object to this extreme example
In any case, discussion of causation of deaths leads to an argument that some may consider a stretch as an example, yet none can refute. The best way to eliminate future deaths, by any means is to stop reproducing. Sex DOES lead to death. Unfair example, possibly, but true.
Also, of curious note: When Catholics kill Protestants, or vice versa, why is it that both are given as evidence of victims and also perecutors? The same goes for religion vs religion.
How do you define government size? There are many ways to do so, thus I can not be certain in many attempts to refute your argument nor what I suppose to be your reasons for why government is bigger than it ever was. I am assuming that you blame the current administration. Fuck it...in any case..let me say this...A great proportion (sorry if I don't check the figures right now) is devoted to Social Security which was established long ago. Some include as within the figures that government is growing larger, yet also cause an uproar if it is suggested that it be done away with in any way. I remember reading a post against Reagan for his tax increases. It stuck with me, then I saw that the tax increases were on Social Security. Social Secrutiy or no Social Security? People can't have it both ways.I have watched some interesting History Channel programs that have made me rethink things. I do wish I had them at my immediate disposal. For instance, I did not realize that successfulr brain surgery occurred long before this century. I also saw that many of the war strategies used to defeat the Nazis were taken from the Bible. I suspect an open minded individual would find at least some really smart things from the Bible. But what do I know? Apparently I was stupid enough to think that when I voted Libertarian I was actually voting Libertarian, as opposed to voting for Bush. As far as secularists knowing about the Bible...plenty do. (And, may I add. A free market person, such as myself, has known the defintion of socialism better than some who have professed that 'socialism works'.)
[ invalid url ]
Realtip, I love that you include atheism as a religion. I wanted to say more, but I'm done.
Forget God, Stalin and the Nazis - I'm still stuck on this bit of homespun observation and conjecture. Thank goodness those women got their hygiene sorted thanks to the influence of porn...cleanliness being next to godliness that is and all...
Stalin lasted 29 years. He would have had to murder nearly one and a half million people PER YEAR to achieve this. Best records indicate numbers closer to 2.5 million executed, and nearly 5 million who died in the Gulag. Even the high estimations of 20 million dead are difficult to justify. The anti-communism movement has engaged in a tremendous revisionist movement in order to justify the cold war.
Mao's figure of 37 million dead is a flat out fabrication. Good luck placing the dead, with any kind of chronology on this one. China's population massively increased under Mao, which would not be possible if he had decimated it's citizens in this way. Something on the order of 50%.
As for Hitler, beyond the 6 million Jews, the rest was mostly warfare with his neigboring countries. Even then 21 million is a high estimate. Moreover, it is HIGHLY questionable to say that Hitler, and more importantly the men he commanded, was not Christian. That debate has raged for 50 years, mostly because the Christians don't want his victims' blood on their hands...
Edited by - Shotgun Styles on 6/15/2006 10:01:06 AM
Kuntu fi jaysh al-Amriki ka istikhbarat askariya li muddat thamanya sanawat (8 years in the Army as Military Intelligence). THAT'S my source, pal! :-)For the commies, those numbers are alleged to include all those who dies of famine or disease during their reigns. It's debatable how many of those deaths they can actually be blamed for, though.Total caualties in the European Theater of WW2, both military and civilian, were about 40 million, with some estimates going up to 50 (Source: My admittedly fallable memory from high school and History Channel specials, but Wikipedia agrees with me. As for how accurate they are, well...). If you want to lay the blame for _all_ of them on Hitler, then those attributed to Stalin will go down by 10 million or so, and then Adolf has got Joe beat for numbers. You will note that Stalin's death toll took 33 years to accumulate, Mao's took 34, but poor old Hitler only had 11 years to work with, only 6 of which he was actively killing people. IMO, Adolf "wins".
Hitler deliberately targeted civilians in Eastern Europe to create future living space. This is quite seperate from the war against partisans. Add another six million "undesireables". His actions, regardless of claimed religion, wouldn't place anybody's blood on the hands of Christians. This was hardly a war of religion. Jews were a convenient target because they were Jews and have always been a focus of hate in Europe. Won Hitler many supporters outside of Germany too.
50%? Are you kidding? Are you saying that from a population of 74 (the 100% of which the 37 million represents 50%) million that China expanded to 1.2 billion in 50 years (roughly)? The population was in the hundreds of millions. It is entirely possible to both kill people and have your population grow.
c'mon man, I'm American. Do you think I would know that language? Or did your cat just walk across your keyboard?
Actually, I was looking for examples really.
Shotgun Styles, chaotic_23, (Yep! a combined response).
I don't consider myself to be an authority on the subject. I have provided a source. Feel free to examine it. Based on the reading, and other things that I have casually come across, the range of estimated deaths is quite broad. The numbers I gave were not the highest that I have come across, nor were they the lowest. I have to give a bit of faith, as most do when it comes to history. I also assume that the death totals of African Americans and American Indians can be questioned.
One thing that I was auite interested in was the total for Mao. I was not quite certain that it included the great famine during the Great Leap Forward. Famine was included under democide, but I was not certain whether or not some distinction were made regarding whether it was intentional or not. It was clear to me that intentionally starving a population based on some characteristic was included in the democide figure. But I am still curious as to whether or not it includes famine resulting from central planning. As far as I am concerned if the government dictates central planning and millions of people starve to death because of error in the central planning, then the death was the result of government. I don't know if Rummel included the famine of the Great Leap Forward or not.
(Note: Rummel did write books on China and Russia exclusively.]
Yeah, I wrote that, not Chaotic. China's population was 400 million, under Mao grew to 700 million. That's more than a 60% increase during his 29 year (not 50) rule/rieghn/term. Yes, he killed a hell of alot of people, but it was not nearly 37 million.
The 50 year thing was that it has been about 50 years since the Cultural Revolution got hot and heavy. I didn't say that the 37 million figure was right, contended the logic. When you add up the famine caused by his policies, you may well come up with 37 million. Those things can also be localized. People and animals will still reproduce while malnourished - look at Africa. So it is really possible.
Sorry about the mis-atributions, probably cut the quote at the wrong points. Claimed. Interesting word. People claim a lot of things. But that doesn't make the Nazis Christian, nor their actions based on that religion.
Well, if you're going to blame Godless Communism for Stalin and Mao, or ISlam for Osama, then you should blame Christianity for Hitler too. Fair is fair.
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Jun 12 2006 : 11:25PM
