Uechi-Ryu.com

Meta

To an extent yes.

Relgion's tend to define what is "moral" and what is not for their groups.

Part of parcel of saying that "my way is better" is the clear demonstaion of superority.
If a person advances the arguement that "relgion is foolish superstion" then that same person would be forced to establish why what they belive is "better."
And the athiest crowd loves to poke fun at the "antics" of the relgious.
But from where I sit the atheists have little room to offer claims of superority.

Lack of morality can be seen in BOTH relgious and NON-RELGIOUS approachs.
Amazingly cruel and horrible things can be tied to EITHER approach.

And morality can be demonstrated by folks that are staunch Christains AND atheists.

Point being that NEITHER has demonstratable supereroity over the other.

The article that set this whole thread going Meta--the one above mention a guy using the courts to force people to conform to HIS views of the world.

That to me is no more palatable than the Church forceing Gailalo to conform to ITS views.

cxt wrote:
To an extent yes.

Religion's tend to define what is "moral" and what is not for their groups.

Part of parcel of saying that "my way is better" is the clear demonstration of superiority.
If a person advances the argument that "religion is foolish superstion" then that same person would be forced to establish why what they believe is "better."

Meta: I would argue that there are indeed some things that are "better" than others, if for nothing more than the long term success and growth of a society.
For example, it is self evident that killing is counterproductive to society, ergo, it is "bad" therefore it is "better" to not kill.
Modern science has done a fairly good job of smashing many once sternly held mythological beliefs, for example, the once widely held idea that illness comes from "bad air", or "evil spirits". As such, the treatments, since they did not address the root cause, were ineffective. We now of course know different, and as such, one can say indeed that there is a "better" method, and therefore superior method, to treating illness.
Such can be said with society. While indeed good and bad are concepts which exist only in the minds of humans, (As far as we know) what we are left with are concepts and actions which either benefit society, or cause it detriment. Clearly there are "better" and "worse" meme streams with respect to promotion or destruction.
In my own view, I have concluded that the concept which mythos and especially religion will ultimately not lead humankind to a "better" path of social development, due to its persistant penchant to supress new ideas or discoveries.
So yes, It is accurate to say that I find it slightly humorous the antics of some of my fellow humans with respect to their religious based actions, but mostly I find it disheartening and it saddens me to see such wasted potential.

cxt wrote: Lack of morality can be seen in BOTH relgious and NON-RELGIOUS approachs.
Amazingly cruel and horrible things can be tied to EITHER approach.

Meta: Extremism exists in many forms.
Most of the time, when massive groups of humans congregate with single minded purpose, the outcome is usually negative for groups which do not share the same ideas.

cxt wrote: Point being that NEITHER has demonstratable supereroity over the other.

Meta: I could not disagree more.
Clearly mythos belief systems which have items that fly in the face of scientific reality are inferior.

cxt wrote: The article that set this whole thread going Meta--the one above mention a guy using the courts to force people to conform to HIS views of the world.

Meta: No one can "force" another to truly believe anything, fact or fiction. My take on the article is to legally challenge the validity of what so many people in this world simply accept as blind fact. It additionally appears to me that you are attempting to give religion and science equal footing, and clearly that is in error, because one is observable fact, and one is mythos. Would you say that the story of the Minotaur is on equal footing with say, nuclear medicine?

cxt wrote: That to me is no more palatable than the Church forceing Gailalo to conform to ITS views.

Meta: For the purposes of Government, there clearly has to be a dominating paradigm, and in Galileo's time, his discoveries were indeed a threat to the Church's authority, but not because they were merely a subversive spin on the existing mythos, but perhaps more because they represented truths that could not be allowed to be dispersed, such as they were reasonable, and observable.
Anarchy clearly works for no one's favor.

Meta

Your conflating the issue.

I agree whole-heartedly that science should trump superstition.
Your mis-charactizing my opposition to totaltarianism as being opposed to science.

Simply not true.

It remains to be established that religion is any more harmful or helpful than non-relgion.

As mentioned 3 of the most violent and destructive social sytems the world has ever known were also violently anti-relgious.
Clearly their opposition to relgion did not result in a peaceful and enlightend socity.
It resulted in a horribly repressive and murderous one.
The equal of any theocratic nation you can name.

On a national level there seems to be little effective difference between those that embrace a "mythos system" and those that utterly reject one.

Just as clearly on an individual level atheist have NOT been demonstarted to lead lives of any more succes or health or than relgious people.
They are not demonstratably smarter or happier.

"Most" people of faith also understand that modern science is to be embraced--very few folks actually refuse to take modern medicane in favor of superstition.

But no-one should be forceing their belifes on others.

Which is the point of the article.

This yahoo is just not content to let people belive what they will---he is using legal means to force people to behave as he sees fit.

This is no different than the Church doing so to Galailo.

The guy in question is saying in effect "I belive "X"--and I will force YOU to accept my beliefs and worldview."

Its an expression and act of a totalitarian midset.

And it should be opposed.

cxt wrote:Meta

Your conflating the issue.

Meta: How so?

cxt wrote: While I agree whole-heartedly that science should trump superstition.
It remains to be established that religion is any more harmful or helpful than non-religion.

Meta: I reject that entire statement as utterly ludicrous. (Not you, just the statement)
Religion and other various faith based belief systems have historically accounted and STILL account for more known and untold human death, misery and suffering than any other causation. Ask any anthropologist or archeologist who is alive today to corroborate that statement.
In fact, you don't even need to go that far. Just read the daily news.

cxt wrote: As mentioned 3 of the most violent and destructive social systems the world has ever known were also violently anti-relgious.

Meta: Just so we are on the same page, which three were you referring to?

cxt wrote: On a national level there seems to be little effective difference between those that embrace a "mythos system" and those that utterly reject one.

Meta:National level how? and it what context do you mean " effective difference"?

cxt wrote: Just as clearly on an individual level atheist have NOT been demonstarted to lead lives of any more succes or health or than relgious people.

Meta: Since I am not an atheist, I would not know.

cxt wrote: They are not demonstratably smarter or happier.

Meta: I agree with you there.

cxt wrote: "Most" people of faith also understand that modern science is to be embraced--very few folks actually refuse to take modern medicane in favor of superstition.

Meta: Indeed, this is paradox (One of many) which plagues religion. Why is there a need for medicine at all then? If God is all, and you become sick, if you try to treat it, then you are going against God's will and thus are fighting him, and thus are a sinner. As crazy as this sounds, there are religious factions in the U.S., which embrace this view.

But on the world scene, have you been to the third world lately?
In countries like Malawi, Thailand and Burma for example, there is a current health crisis in which a common, avoidable disease is spreading (Polio) Not because there is no vaccine, but because people are ignorant, and are refusing to take the vaccines from the aid workers because the local shamans and witchdoctors are saying that the vaccine causes the disease. As a result, more children become disabled or die.

cxt wrote: But no-one should be forceing their belifes on others.

Meta: Again, I point out that no one can force another to "believe" anything. Or did you mean to say, No one should dare talk badly about or challenge the validity of someone else's beliefs?
If not, then what do you mean? If so, I would say it is my right as an American to express my thoughts and opinions, and to say that I should be silenced, is a form of tyranny, and as you put it, should be opposed.

cxt wrote: This yahoo is just not content to let people belive what they will---he is using legal means to force people to behave as he sees fit.

Meta: If the religious world was content to let their faith stay their own, then there would be no debate. Any society will prosper as long as it is uses critical thinking, tolerance, reason, and moderation as foundations.
You would accuse such a person and call him a "Yahoo" yet perhaps you forget that the worst tyranny known to mankind has and still is organized religion. In America, I can stand in a public place and express my view that religion is a backwards mythos which will eventually give way to something else given time, and people make look at me strange, but as long as I don't disrupt people's lives too much, I am free to do so.

In a Theocracy, I can be subject to death for daring to even blaspheme. Especially if I am a woman, which by the way, in most religious context, are almost always given lower status than men. A classic example of tyranny if ever there was one.

cxt wrote: The guy in question is saying in effect "I belive "X"--and I will force YOU to accept my beliefs and worldview."

The person in question cannot force anyone to believe, only to provide impetus to think. (And to force religion out of governmental and civic managed processes.)
If you live in Iran right now, and don't pray how and when everyone else does, you can expect to be at the very least, an outcast, and at worst, jail time, or even death.

cxt wrote: Its an expression and act of a totalitarian mindset.

That's ironic, because I see him as attempting liberation *from* a totalitarian mindset.
Religion is indeed a totalitarian mindset. After all heaven is a Kingdom, is it not? God is King, we are his servants. Either accept his will, and live, or deny him and burn in hellfire for all eternity. There is no way but God's way.

I already explained "how so."

Nope

The Communist of the USSR, China, Cambodia and the Nazi's were as bad as any relgious state in terms of repression and horror and death.

Which is kinda what I mean by "natonal level"--you equate relgion as being a bane--I am just pointing out that nations that are violently opposed to any relgious expression have no room to to claim a better system.

They are BOTH demonstratably capable of horrific evil.

Therefore neither can be considered "better" in that regard.

Not my place to explain or act as the apologist for folks that choose to use "faith" rather than moden science to cure their ills.

What I am saying is that I have a problem interfering in personal choice.
We punish those that allow kids to die by cults that belive in not using modern medicine.
But we don't and should not have the right to interfer with a citizens right to refuse drugs for whatever relgious reason they choose.

Fundamentally the USA is about rights--the right to make descions concerning your OWN person----even if they are bad decisons--even if it kills you.
We don't stop people from smoking and a wide range of extreme sports.

Places like Mali are not voting republics with laws to protect people that express differing view points.
Thats the fault of repressive governements.

You can't blame ALL religion for the offensives of extremeists.

In this case its not a question of "challanging" the validity of peopels beliefs.
Its using the courts and legal process to make people behave in the manner in which the guy chooses.

Just like the ID'ers tried to do here.

Unable to make a succesful challange in the realm of science, in the realm of ideas----they shifted ground and tried to use the courts.

This is also where you conflate the issue again, you equate any relgious beleif in NOT also embracing science and reason.
And thats just not the case, many great scientists were people of faith.

The two ideas are not mutually contridictory.

Your missing the point, among other things your using examples of many different nations to apply to this SPECIFC one of Italy.

Iran is one thing--and to be really blunt their embracing a fanatical relgious ideology is not stopping them from making some dangerous scientifc advances now is it?

In this specific case, the only people involved are those that CHOOSE to be catholic christains.

No-one is foceing anybody to accpet anything that they don't want to.

EXCEPT the goober using the courts to try and enforce his personal set of beliefs on everyone else.

Please note-- that its NOT the christains going to court to enforce THEIR belief structure on HIM now is it?

cxt wrote:I already explained "how so."

Meta: I must have missed it. I guess I'm just not as sharp as I think I am.

cxt wrote: The Communist of the USSR, China, Cambodia and the Nazi's were as bad as any relgious state in terms of repression and horror and death.

Meta: No argument there. A religious state is indeed very similar to Communist of the USSR, China, Cambodia and the Nazi's.

cxt wrote: Which is kinda what I mean by "natonal level"--you equate relgion as being a bane--I am just pointing out that nations that are violently opposed to any relgious expression have no room to to claim a better system.

Meta: Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself.

cxt wrote: Not my place to explain or act as the apologist for folks that choose to use "faith" rather than moden science to cure their ills.

Meta: This goes beyond mere religious tolerance to an area of ignorance which harms others, A child has no say in what the parent does or does not on "faith." Yet the Child must suffer the consequences.

cxt wrote:
What I am saying is that I have a problem interfering in personal choice.

Meta: I disagree. I would advocate non-interference for anything and everything only if the actions which I was being tolerant of did not affect others negatively, cause violence or suffering, or trampled upon the basic human rights of others.
In other words, I'm OK with people having religious views of their own, and worshiping as they see fit in whatever way, and expressing their faith how they choose UNLESS that expression or action causes harm to others or puts others at risk for harm, or negates basic human rights. I think this is reasonable.

cxt wrote: We punish those that allow kids to die by cults that believe in not using modern medicine.

Meta: And as well we should. Belonging to a specific religious group does not negate one's duty as a citizen to abide by the law of the land.

cxt wrote: But we don't and should not have the right to interfer with a citizens right to refuse drugs for whatever relgious reason they choose.

Meta: If you mean an adult, yes. I agree with you. However if you mean a child, or the infirm, or the mentally disabled, I disagree. When faced with a choice of life or death, and the adult or child cannot make a mature choice due to age lack of or mental faculty, we must always choose in the best interest of the patient.

cxt wrote: Fundamentally the USA is about rights--the right to make descions concerning your OWN person----even if they are bad decisons--even if it kills you.
We don't stop people from smoking and a wide range of extreme sports.

Meta: You don't know how much I wish that were true.
The wicked leader is he who the people despise. The good leader is he who the people revere. The great leader is he who the people say, 'We did it ourselves.'

cxt wrote: Places like Mali are not voting republics with laws to protect people that express differing view points.
Thats the fault of repressive governements.

Meta: True.

cxt wrote: You can't blame ALL religion for the offensives of extremeists.

Meta: I question modern day humans adherence to religious mythos, and it appears that when people who are strongly religiously like minded and united under an unwavering, unchanging, rigid and are unquestioning belief system as they march forward, violence, death and destruction has always been the result.

cxt wrote: In this case its not a question of "challanging" the validity of peopels beliefs.
Its using the courts and legal process to make people behave in the manner in which the guy chooses.

Meta: If one feels that people should not attempt to sway others to their mindset, then I would submit that this is a highly naive view of reality. All human beings will at one time or another, some more than most, will attempt in their interaction to convince others that their way is the right way. It's that what we are doing right now with this thread? It is human nature to do so. Humans need to do this in order to form cohesiveness. We are tribal by nature. We usually don't take readily to a change in ideas, once established. That's the nature of a paradigm.
But I digress. I don't see where he is personally trying to force anything, save for the law, as written by the people, to be enforced. If the Church broke the law, then they should be held to account like anyone else.

cxt wrote: Just like the ID'ers tried to do here.

Meta: Right! And they lost.

cxt wrote: This is also where you conflate the issue again, you equate any relgious beleif in NOT also embracing science and reason.

Meta: By most religious creation mythos, science and the word of God are not compatible.
And example:
Either God created the world in 7 days, or he did not.
If he did not, then the bible, as a word of God, is false, and as such, so is the concept.
By the way, if anyone ever doubted the most voluminous and deep concepts of murder, tyranny, torture, hatred, intolerance, racism, and horror are not in the bible just about everywhere, people should read it again more closely.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

cxt wrote: And thats just not the case, many great scientists were people of faith.

Meta: Also quite true.

cxt wrote: The two ideas are not mutually contridictory.

Meta: Unless one practices their own brand of religion, and in the case of Christianity, one would have to practice a variety which takes what they want, and dismisses the rest, which of course would be against the concept of Christian dogma.

cxt wrote: Iran is one thing--and to be really blunt their embracing a fanatical relgious ideology is not stopping them from making some dangerous scientifc advances now is it?

Meta: Right you are. Which exposes the supreme hypocrisy which religion and faith possess.

cxt wrote: EXCEPT the goober using the courts to try and enforce his personal set of beliefs on everyone else.

Meta: Laws which are pre-written would not be bending to his will, but the will of the people who had previously passed such laws. If his argument has no merit, it will be dismissed, plain as that.

cxt wrote: Please note-- that its NOT the christains going to court to enforce THEIR belief structure on HIM now is it?

Meta: Interesting that you say that considering what we have just seen regarding ID Vs Evo, and not to mention that Christian groups habitually engage in lawsuits in attempts to enforce their personal beliefs onto the populace even when no such laws exist.

Meta

Did not say that I was opposed to people "swaying" others to their way of thinking.
Said I was opposed to doing so in this case, ESP with these methods.

If your opposed to the ID'ers using the courts rather than the marketplace of ideas to "sway" others they are correct--then you should be equally opposed to this guy doing so.

He wants to take on all comers in a debate about the exsistance of Jesus--he's welcome to do so.

He wants to stand on the street and "preach" his message--good for him.

He wants to buy time in the media to express his views--more power to him.

He wants protection from those that threaten him for expressing his viewpoint.
Count me in to protect him.

He wants to use the courts to force folks to behave as HIS viewpoint on religion dictates?

Absolutly not.

Like I said, its telling that Italy--an overwhelming cathlic christain nation is NOT using their money, and power and influence or numbers force HIM to accept and belive in THEIR viewpoint.
They are NOT in court, trying to force other people to view the world THEIR way.

Rather he is using the courts to force HIS viewpoint on THEM.

cxt wrote: If your opposed to the ID'ers using the courts rather than the marketplace of ideas to "sway" others they are correct--then you should be equally opposed to this guy doing so.

Meta: I disagree. It depends on the argument.
If someone tries to force the words, "In the tooth fairy we trust" to be printed on our money, and also tries to argue that the tooth fairly is real, then that is not reasonable, because a reasonable person can conclude that based upon a minimal amount of evidence, the Tooth Fairy is not real.

cxt wrote: He wants to use the courts to force folks to behave as HIS viewpoint on religion dictates?
Absolutly not.

Meta: All change, both societal and mental, must begin somewhere. I prefer to not focus on the person in this case, but rather the merit of his argument.
As I see it, he is merely arguing that the law is not being followed, and if his case has evidence to prove that, then it will not be his will, but the will of the people who wrote the law. He will have played a role of only reminding the state of it's obligation to the people to enforce it's laws. This is something which we do in America all the time.

cxt wrote: Like I said, its telling that Italy--an overwhelming cathlic christain nation is NOT using their money, and power and influence or numbers force HIM to accept and belive in THEIR viewpoint.

Meta: But yet, at one time, in Italy in fact, doing what he is attempting to do now would have meant a roasting on the spit as Heresy.
Someone, somewhere, took the courageous road before him to challenge the concept of the Churches' power over life and death to even set the stage for the current event.

This discussion is proceeding quite nicely - as I had hoped.

* The Darwinian guy reminds me of someone trying to explain human behavior with Freudian theory. It was only a theory of psychsexual development. The only thing remarkable about it was that it was a good start - and that's it. Quite frankly this guy could have saved us all quite a bit of bandwidth if he had gone beyond Darwinian theory and studied a little bit of sociobiology. In sociobiology it isn't the individual that is king - it's the gene. This explains a whole lot of group behavior - particularly where many individuals in a group share much of the same DNA. But I digress...

The point is that this guy is anti-religious and a Darwinian, and he's trying to come to grips with the world. That's fine. But don't start with a (possibly flawed) view and try to prove it - the very thing that scientists accuse the ID people of. It's best to chill and observe before making sense of things.

* I see examples of strawman arguments about religion and religious practices. A good example is

Meta wrote:
Why is there a need for medicine at all then? If God is all, and you become sick, if you try to treat it, then you are going against God's will and thus are fighting him, and thus are a sinner.

All I can say is I pity you if someone foisted all these narrow-minded beliefs on you. I'm "connected with" three different religions (Catholic, Episcopalian, UU) and am close to others in other faiths (Judaism, Muslim). And I must say that I cannot identify with many of the beliefs attributed to religion and religous people.

I happen to be a scientist as well, BTW, as well as a Jeffersonian.

* I see troubling examples of statements presented as fact which are anything but. For example,

Meta wrote:
Religion and other various faith based belief systems have historically accounted and STILL account for more known and untold human death, misery and suffering than any other causation.

Get real, Meta. I could just as easily claim atheism to be guilty of the same (per cxt's examples of fascism, communism, etc.)

* Meta writes

Meta wrote:
In my own view, I have concluded that the concept which mythos and especially religion will ultimately not lead humankind to a "better" path of social development, due to its persistant penchant to supress new ideas or discoveries.

I highly recommend you read the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The world of science and scientists are no less guilty than religion of holding back imagination.

There's a "Frank & Ernest" comic strip showing a chick breaking out of its shell, looking around, and saying, "Oh, wow! Paradigm shift!" Blame the late Thomas Kuhn. Few indeed are the philosophers or historians influential enough to make it into the funny papers, but Kuhn is one.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the history of science. Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift" and "normal science," his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological factors in science--all have had profound effects on historians, scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and even the cartoonist in the street.

Some scientists (such as Steven Weinberg and Ernst Mayr) are profoundly irritated by Kuhn, especially by the doubts he casts--or the way his work has been used to cast doubt--on the idea of scientific progress. Yet it has been said that the acceptance of plate tectonics in the 1960s, for instance, was sped by geologists' reluctance to be on the downside of a paradigm shift. Even Weinberg has said that "Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science." As one of Kuhn's obituaries noted, "We all live in a post-Kuhnian age."

--Mary Ellen Curtin

Wow, imagine that!

Imagination is more important than knowledge

-- Albert Einstein

- Bill

Bill Glasheen wrote:

This discussion is proceeding quite nicely - as I had hoped.

Meta:(Stewie voice) Yes,.. your evil little voyeuristic mental masturbatory experiment is proceeding right in schedule on seems..DAMN YOU ALL!


* I see examples of strawman arguments about religion and religious practices. A good example is

Meta wrote:
Why is there a need for medicine at all then? If God is all, and you become sick, if you try to treat it, then you are going against God's will and thus are fighting him, and thus are a sinner.

All I can say is I pity you if someone foisted all these narrow-minded beliefs on you.

Meta: My lame excuse is that I was pressed for time.

Bill Glasheen wrote: I'm "connected with" three different religions (Catholic, Episcopalian, UU) and am close to others in other faiths (Judaism, Muslim). And I must say that I cannot identify with many of the beliefs attributed to religion and religious people.

Meta: That's quite a load of guilt to deal with!

Bill Glasheen wrote: I happen to be a scientist as well, BTW, as well as a Jeffersonian.

Meta: And social engineer to some degree.

Bill Glasheen wrote: * I see troubling examples of statements presented as fact which are anything but. For example,

Meta wrote:
Religion and other various faith based belief systems have historically accounted and STILL account for more known and untold human death, misery and suffering than any other causation.

Get real, Meta. I could just as easily claim atheism to be guilty of the same (per cxt's examples of fascism, communism, etc.)

Meta: Hmmm..There has to be some numbers out there.
I simply am *convinced* at this point that more people have been killed in the name of God than any other deity.

Bill Glasheen wrote: * Meta writes

Meta wrote:
In my own view, I have concluded that the concept which mythos and especially religion will ultimately not lead humankind to a "better" path of social development, due to its persistent penchant to suppress new ideas or discoveries.

I highly recommend you read the book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The world of science and scientists are no less guilty than religion of holding back imagination.

Meta: Damn you to hell!

Sigh.. But you are right.
The Ivory Tower doth indeed stand ready in many disciplines.

Bill Glasheen wrote: Wow, imagine that! -- Albert Einstein

- Bill

Meta: Now that's just fighting nasty.

-Metablade- wrote: Meta: Hmmm..There has to be some numbers out there.
I simply am *convinced* at this point that more people have been killed in the name of God than any other deity.

I would tend to agree that "in the name of God" would be one of the top reasons why wars have been waged, especially realizing that "God" is a catch-all term for the being that is worshipped by various different religions and called a different name by each of those religions.

However, in the last century or so, it is well documented and indisputable that more people have been killed by their own governments than in wars. Since those are not "in the name of God", but are in the name of the Nation-State and since most of those deaths have occurred in Nation-States that were strictly atheistic, well...

As far as I'm concerned, one person killed in the name of God is one too many.

BTW:
Can you provide specifics into which countries and governments and wars which you are speaking of?
I find it difficult to argue with generality.

Certainly. The examples here are all within the past century and the numbers cited are not war casualties, but are the numbers of citizens murdered by their own government.

Country -------- Date --------- target --------- estimated number murdered

Turkey --------- 1915-1917 --- Armenians ------------------ 1 - 1.5 Million

Soviet Union -- 1929-1953 --- Anti-Communists/Anti-Stalinists - 20 Million

Nazi Germany - 1933-1945 --- Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis -------- 13 Million

PR of China -- 1949-1952 --- Anti-Communists
---------------- 1957-1960 --- Rural Population Purge
---------------- 1966-1876 --- Pro-Reform Group ----------- total 20 Million

Guatemala --- 1960-1981 --- Mayans ------------------------- 100,000

Uganda ------ 1971-1979 --- Christians/Political Rivals ------ 300,000

Cambodia --- 1975-1979 --- Educated Persons ------------ 1 - 1.5 Million

Rwanda ------ 1994 --------- Tutsis/Christians --------------- 750,000

Somalia ------ (Sorry I don't have the numbers at hand right now...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that short list, there are over 57 MILLION people murdered by their own governments. There are more... much more. The information in the documentary film Innocents Betrayed shows that the total number of people murdered by their own governments worldwide for the 20th Century is in the 170,000,000 (170 MILLION) range.

Add up as many casualties in the name of "God" that you want and I don't think that it will come close in the last century or so. These are all murders/genocides that have been commited by the governments over their own citizenry for various reasons. Some reasons as small as simply voicing opposition to a government program/proposal/position others because they disagreed with the UN/Planned Parenthood forced abortions taking place in their country.

Meta

Your still using examples that belong to the vast reachs of history to contrast with this yahoos CURRENT actions.

Under Itlaian law he is free to express himself and his views.

That the Church "back in the day" used to burn people at the stake has NOTHING to do with its current practice.

This guy CURRENTLY wishs to be the behavior and thought police for everyone else--and he tried to use the courts to do it.

And that's wrong.

Like I said before--I will stand up and defend this guys right to his beliefs and the free expression of them.

I will NOT support his attempts to use the courts to force people to behave and think as HE dictates.

BTW--you already AGREED to my examples of nations that commited horrific acts that ALSO were violently oppoesed to religion--China, USSR, Cambodia, Nazi Germany.

So they are not "generalities" at all.

Panther wrote:
Add up as many casualties in the name of "God" that you want and I don't think that it will come close in the last century or so. These are all murders/genocides that have been commited by the governments over their own citizenry for various reasons. Some reasons as small as simply voicing opposition to a government program/proposal/position others because they disagreed with the UN/Planned Parenthood forced abortions taking place in their country.

Meta:Well done, and well said!
I applaud you, and thank you, for taking the for showing me where I stand corrected on this issue.