When going after religionS (frequently plural and non-distinguished or differentiated), Atheists always ignores their own Marxist history, and the Enlightenment’s creation in the genocidal French Revolution. Tarico is certainly in line with that.
”Is monotheism inherently violent? Is religion an excuse or cover for other kinds of conflict? Are Western colonialism and warmongering in the root of the problem? Do blasphemers make themselves targets? Is the very concept of blasphemy a form of coercion or violence that demands resistance? Is killing in the name of gods a distortion of religion? Alternately, is it the real thing?
Each of these questions is best answered “yes, and” rather than “yes/no.”
With the possible exception of Buddhism, the world’s most powerful religions give wildly contradictory messages about violence. The Christian Bible is full of exhortations to kindness, compassion, humility, mercy and justice. It is also full of exhortations to stoning, burning, slavery, torture, and slaughter. If the Bible were law, most people you know would qualify for the death penalty. The same can be said of the Quran. The same can be said of the Torah. Believers who claim that Islam or Christianity or Judaism is a religion of peace are speaking a half-truth—and a naive falsehood.”
Fortunately for us, Tarico answers her own questions because we might have gotten it wrong. For example, that religion is the root of the problem. I, for one, would not have guessed that the KGB or the Maoists were all that religious. But they are not the “root”; religion is. Further, it is a naïve falsehood to claim otherwise, so all the Atheist Marxists are safe from her condemnations, as are the Atheist heirs of the French Revolution.
The AtheoLeftist always goes straight to the biblical rules made for historical Jewish communities while they wandered without a homeland, and ignores the New Testament completely (almost), or at least trivialize it as much as possible. By basing their rhetoric on the Old Testament they can claim that Christians must be violent, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Evidence is important only when it confirms the narrative, and that also explains the lack of interest in the Atheist bloody ravages in just the past 100 years, far more bloody and moral-free than Christianity has ever been, even cumulatively. And it is always necessary to associate Christianity with Islam; otherwise the accusation would fall flat, even on cynical Atheist ears.
Further, her reference to the Christian “ethnic cleansing” in the Central African Republic seems to be false: there is no reference for this at the UN Security Council page specifically for the CAR itself, and all other reports seem to be based on a circular rumor, while none give any link to an actual report.
The obvious fallacy, Guilt By Association, is the only weapon that the AtheoLeft has against its major enemy, Christianity. And to do that AtheoLeftists must accept the fact that Islam, their own partner in Christian-hating, is extremely violent. That partnership is temporarily ignored just so that Christianity can be falsely associated with the violence and totalitarian barbarism of Islam. The ploy is so transparent as to be obvious at the primary school level.
”I would argue that, like alcohol, religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, and that it does so only when other factors have created conditions favorable toward aggression. I might also argue that under better circumstances religion disinhibits generosity and compassion, increasing giving and helping behaviors. Religion often is centered around authority and text worship (aka “bibliolatry”). Because of this, it has the power to lower the threshold on any behavior sanctioned by either a sacred text or a trusted religious leader and is at its most powerful when one is echoed by the other.”
This psychologist gives nothing but her Atheist opinion, no evidence, no references. Actual evidence consistently shows that in the west, Atheists give almost nothing to charity while the religious give generously to secular as well as religious charities. Further, studies show that Atheists have a decreased empathy level compared to Christians, in that they are far less likely to help a particular needy individual. Atheists think they are empathetic if they get teary eyed over a TV documentary alleging society’s persecution of polar bears. AtheoLeftists are known to be tax dead-beats as well, putting the lie to any claim that they “gave” to the government for distribution.
Also she promotes the concept of Authoritarian or forced worship, despite the lack of authority in western religions (save cults). She is thus equating the generic class, “religion”, with cult properties in order to support her Atheist needs. Atheism comes closer to cult thought, enforced by peer ridicule, but she ignores the worshipful reverence for Richard Dawkins who has “saved” millions for Atheism. That would not be helpful for her narrative.
”Despite the fact that violence is repeatedly endorsed in sacred texts, most Christians, Muslims and Jews never commit acts of violence in the service of their religion. Similarly, millions of people consume alcohol without insulting, hitting, kicking, stabbing or shooting anyone. Most of us are peaceful drinkers and peaceful believers.
You know there is another shoe to drop:
” Yet, [here it is, the contradiction of the previous statement] statistically we know that without alcohol assaults would be less common. [Start with False Association; justify what „we all know”: Fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum ] – So too, we all know that when suicide bombings happen, or blasphemers and apostates are condemned to die, or a rape victim is stoned to death, Islam is likely to be involved. And when we hear that an obstetrics doctor has been shot or a gay teen beaten and left for dead, or a U.S. president has announced a “crusade”, we know that Christianity was likely a part of the mix.”
This is the ultimate in stretching reality via demonstrable logic fallacy in order to support an ideology. First compare religion to alcoholic violence; then compare that to Islamic violence; find the remote violence by alleged Christians which occurs once every decade or so. Claim that Christianity, despite previous disclaimers, is known to be actually violent, imply that it is to be feared more than the excesses of world wide Atheism. Claim that war on terrorists is an illegitimate “presidential crusade” and thus Christian violence, as if no Atheist or Leftist approved it.
Only the deranged would believe these claims.
And the final claim, dredged from past millennia:
”American Christianity retains shadows of the inquisitor’s hood and implements of torture.”
If this is so, then Atheism is to be fully condemned based on the hundreds of millions killed by atheists in very recent history, and even their brutality in major Atheist nations still today. So I feel free and comfortable in condemning her as an Atheist under her own principles of condemnation.
”As Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity spread across Nigeria and Congo, thousands of children are being beaten or burned or disfigured with acid after being condemned by Christian ministers as “witches.” ”
There is nothing in Christianity about witches; the Vulgate says “wizards”, not witches; i.e., treasonous deceivers. Period. And the right of all punishment belongs not to Christians, it belongs to the deity, to be meted out only by the deity. The doctrinal abuse of Cults are again being equated as if they are exemplary of Christian doctrine and Christians in general.
”Meanwhile in Uganda, American Evangelicals have helped to advance prison terms and death penalties for African gays. The Family, an American Christian organization with members in congress helped to convert Uganda’s president to their form of politicized Christianity. American activists attended a conference in Uganda aimed at “wiping out” homosexuality. ” [It’s Family Research Council, not “the Family”; obviously no research done here for supporting her false conclusion].
That is true, they (FRC leaders) did go to the conference, but not to support the “wiping out”; they went to attempt to instill tolerance per the actual Christian faith which is voluntary, but they failed, probably because of the AIDs epidemic which homosexuals spread throughout their country. The lie, once told to liars, becomes truth; what she and the Atheists push is the lie which by its prevalence is now a received, dogmatic “truth” despite being a lie. Narrative always trumps truth.
”Were the Fort Hood and Charlie Hebdo murder sprees or Boko Haram massacres caused by Islam? Are the Central African murder sprees caused by Christianity? A yes answer is far too simple.”
Oh really? Religion is not the cause? That sudden disclaimer seems out of place, being lost amongst the other prior claims to the contrary. After all, it’s „what we all know”.
”But violence, tribalism, and mutually exclusive truth claims are built into in our sacred texts and traditions. As a consequence, religion around the world continues to disinhibit lethal violence at a horrendous rate
Oh. OK, then. Religions ARE guilty after all.
” For us to vilify Muslims or Christians or any group of believers collectively is to engage in the familiar act of cowardice we call scapegoating. It means, ever and always, that we end up sacrificing innocents to appease our own fear, anger and thirst for vengeance.”
Oh. Wait. Religions are NOT guilty again. It’s the Atheist’s own “thirst for vengeance”? Hmm.
”But for us to ignore the complicated role of religion in violence is a different kind of cowardice, one that has been indulged by peace-lovers among the faithful for far too long.”
OK, now we’re back to “religions ARE guilty after all.” Whew. I’m glad she stopped here. I was getting whiplash.
HT: Anshuman Reddy – thanks for the link!