Money and power and sometimes sex, but the sex is often a subset of power.

I think you're describing human nature, NeverMoJohn. Call it "original sin, natural selection, "the second law of thermodynamics, the "Law of the Jungle" or biodeterminism, even the best-conceived or most idealistically initiated system gets corrupted. With LDS, I think we're talking about something that was corrupt from its base (pun intended) beginnings. I would argue the same for Marxist-Leninism.

This is partly why there are so many denominations. A group of like-minded believers organize for a shared faith and common purpose. Time and corruption occur, and one group says, "This is not what we're supposed to be!" and separates out, or expels those who are degrading the "original thesis." And yes, Anybody--sometimes this has been ugly and tragically violent. But so was Lenin & Stalin's Bolsheviks' persecution of the Mensheviks (Trotskyites, especially). Then there's the centuries-old conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Ben-Gurion, once in power as head of the new State of Israel, crushed Menachem Begin's independent militia, the Irgun. Perhaps we should consider the US Civil War this way.

Mark Twain once quipped (paraphrase), "The one thing empirically provable about Christianity is the doctrine of original sin."

Yes, except I think that religion and politics are apples and oranges.

"Time and corruption occur" - I wouldn't necessarily say that a split in a group means the splitters represent corruption. Maybe they are improving, refining, clarifying or simplifying their beliefs.

Then, though, you have the thorny issue of what the current value is of a group with a murky origin. As in, does it matter what JS and BY were like or why Mormonism came into being as long as today's church is beneficial to humankind. But then the question becomes *is* it beneficial? And so on.

Too, the same query arises relative to Christian churches (and others). To those who don't believe in the Garden of Eden, the plagues, the miracles, the sacrifice, the Cross, the Resurrection, does it matter that Christian and other faiths "do good" in the world, no matter their origins?

So it comes full circle - especially on this board - does the Mormon Church have more of a positive impact on the world than negative? And the Catholic Church - so many proven pedophile/abusive priests and nuns - but also so much provable charity.

As for the question in the OP - I think one part of people who "do evil in the name of religion" is their fervent belief in a particular doctrine, that they see certain things in only black/white terms, that they have accepted they are right and others are wrong, and they never revisit their core belief/s. The mindset becomes concrete (for certain things) and reason doesn't enter nor does a change of mind despite circumstances or additional knowledge. There's a lot more to it, of course, but I have seen this often and have thought deeply about it and think this partially explains it.

Too, it depends on the definition of "evil". Unfortunately, there are many reasons to shake one's head every day in this world when it comes to a person's or group's stated beliefs vs their actions. For example, for me, it's often why can the Pope be so seemingly advanced in his teachings on one hand and so retrogressive in other ways. Or why do EVs have hymns with such beautiful words, that they believe, but then they are exclude and malign people both within and without their flock (for being non-conformists and other abusive reasons).

In my experience, of course.

I think it is just the opposite. They use religion as an excuse
To do evil and then in their minds they are absolved of any responsibility for their actions

I did not say that right!
Turned out backaxx!
What I meant was the framework of religion, relious authority is what they use to place themselves ABOVE everyone else: they are NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES OF ACCOUNTABILITY as every other poor slob!
Good call!

itzbeen20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What I meant was the framework of [politics],
> [politcal] authority is what they use to place
> themselves ABOVE everyone else: they are NO
> LONGER SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES OF ACCOUNTABILITY
> as every other poor slob!


With my amendments, yep!

Human, still not able to wrap the ol’ head around the Democrat embrace of Bush, Frum, Kristol and the myriad other war criminals responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands and the displacement and misery of millions...

...in 800 traded defending the papal holdings in returned to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor!
Think most leaders think they are so ordained, somehow—.
Look at PresMugabe! Who the hell can rule anything in your 95th year of life?
Cannot see, donot have teeth, incontinent, cane or wheelchair, dozen meds, w#f?

Hey man, I’m not kidding: I’d take President Carter today at 93 over everybody since him and everybody on the political horizon.

Dude’s too busy building houses for those who can’t afford them, though...

I like your thinking, itzbeen20. I think you just don't go far enough with it. How much evil, often violent and murderous, has been done to advance or protect "the Cause," "la revolucion," "the Race," "the People," the "Movement," etc. --and its anointed Leader(s), who are not "subject to the same rules of accountability" as every other poor slob."

"Enemies of the People" (or State) are just as vulnerable as religious heretics. In the 20th ad 21st centuries, more so. Religion and politics may be apples and oranges, itzbeen20, but toxic, rotten fruit all the same.

You are right, the list goes on. As they say man’s inhumanity to man.
Although, I really think it is only Greed, greed, and more Greed.
This auto fill is really creative (;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2017 04:17PM by itzbeen20.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire

Jim Jones
David Koresh
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Joseph Smith
Brigham Young

Alfred Kinsey (pedophile, pervert, pseudo-scientist)
Vladimir Lenin
Mao Zedong
Charles Manson
Che Guevara
Margaret Sanger (racist eugenicist)
Tojo and The Japanese Imperial State*
Ho Chi Minh
Numerous Mafia chieftans
Ghengis Khan
Hugo Chavez
Benito Mussolini
Suharto (Indonesia, 1960s & 70s)
Kambanda (Rowandan leader @ Tutsu genocide)
Ismail Enver (Turkish overseer of Armenian, Greek & Assyrian genocides)
Leopold II (Belgian Congo)
Pinochet (Fascist dictator of Chile)

Not a theist among them. Every one of them did evil in the name of a "larger good."

With all respect, Koriwhore and Itzbeen20, I think you're looking through the telescope backwards, so you focus unduly on one object (religiously motivated persecutions) to the exclusion of all others. I am not denying the role of religion! But look at my post further up for various theories and explanations of this perpetual, perhaps genetic, problem with the human race.

It seems everybody has an explanation, but nobody has a solution.

*Imperial Japan did not have a single progenitor, but cumulatively evolved an intense psychological quasi-theocratic belief system which justified and practiced horrific mass atrocities

Cute! Allow me to nit-pick a little, I think it's power more than material goods, although they certainly intersect deeply. That is, wealth and goods, appealing as they are, represent and demonstrate to others accrued power, whether it be an extra shirt in a prison camp, a bigger manse in Georgetown, or a more sumptuous palace in a kingdom.

On the bright side, I am SO encouraged that we humans are evolving SO wonderfully! (</s>)

I'm having trouble seeing Margaret Sanger as belonging on the
list. She was more of a victim, than a doer of evil.

Planned Parenthood has been very successful in controlling the Sanger narrative, and would much prefer to ignore her championing eugenics. Her passion for birth control and abortion was not so much to emancipate women (sexually or professionally) or excessive population, but to reduce, as much as possible, "inferior types," such as the retarded, those with genetic disabilities, the chronically poor, and Negroes (to use the then current term).

Her goal was the improvement and advancement of the white race. Hitler drew heavily on her writing. If you search "Sanger + eugenics," you'll find that the legacy press tends to ignore, minimize, or distort the harsh aspects of her beliefs, and the conservative websites emphasize them. Simply put, the treatment she gets depends upon what side of the abortion issue a journalist or news site favors.

This, from a conservative site:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/22/13-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

I didn't think she belonged on the list until I read more about her. She was a racist and made no bones about it as she delivered talks about it to the KKK on more than one occasion
And openly encouraged birth control, abortion and one of her goals was to reduce the number of black babies being
Born.

Right around the early 1900's Anthony Comstock came on the scene and managed to get legislation past And was successful in making the possession of any birth control or information about it illegal. He was all for going back to the Victorian era and he went after everything such as pornography, prostitution,

Both of these people were fanatics concerning their own agenda

Anon4this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She was a racist and made no
> bones about it as she delivered talks about it to
> the KKK on more than one occasion
> And openly encouraged birth control, abortion and
> one of her goals was to reduce the number of black
> babies being
> Born.

"She was a racist and made no bones about it" . . . On the other
hand she was highly praised by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The
only actual "racist" comment I can find by her is that she
mentioned, in a passing remark, what she termed "is said" about
the "aboriginal Australian."

I've been unable to find any true statement of hers (there are
plenty of bogus statements attributed to her on the internet)
that advocate racist positions. Ben Carson's statement that
Margaret Sanger, "believed that people like me should be
eliminated," has no factual basis.

She was a believer in the eugenics movement, as was Oliver
Wendell Holmes, the revered former Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court who wrote the MAJORITY decision in Buck v. Bell
which upheld forced eugenic sterilizations of tens of thousands
of Americans against their will. But the thrust of her work was
to make birth control available to women who wanted it. The
fact that she shared some of the commonly accepted views of her
day is to be expected.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (legal and
acceptable in their time and place). Similarly Abraham Lincoln
was 'a racist and made no bones about it':

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any
way the social and political equality of the white and black
races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to
intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this
that there is a physical difference between the white and black
races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from
living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together
there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much
as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race.”
--Abraham Lincoln, 18 Sept. 1858, during fourth "Lincoln-Douglas
debate."

But we still esteem Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln for what
they did in spite of the fact that they were products of their
time. Similarly with Sanger whose fight was to bring
reproductive RIGHTS to women in the form of access to birth
control.

She doesn't belong on the list.

As I said above, Baura,searching produces results that reflects where the journalist or news site falls for or against Planned Parenthood. It's come to a sad state of affairs.

"Senator X picks his nose and eats the booger."
One side will say, "There's no proof of that."
Other side will say, "Yes, it was reported in XYZ-News."
First side, "Don't tell me you believe XYZ-News?"

For my money, Baura, there's too much damning material on Sanger out there, and I'm not impressed with the Progressives' efforts to cast her as a secular saint.

My main point, which I'm afraid hasn't come out, is that people do not have to be murderous monsters to make my list. Those with dangerous ideas can set up the philosophical foundation, sometimes unwittingly (Sanger/Hitler), sometimes consciously.

"(Sanger/Hitler)"

Why not

"(Jefferson/Hitler)"

or

"(Lincoln/Hitler)"

The point is the IDEA she was setting up was that women should
have access to birth-control information. That's what she went
to jail for. She was not a crusader for racism, just like
Washington and Jefferson were not crusaders for slavery.

P.S. I get my information from my wife whose PhD dissertation
was on the Eugenics movement, which, by the way, the USA exported
to Nazi Germany. Oh yes, the USA . . . that country that had
laws against equality of races during my lifetime. I hope
you're not considering calling the USA, that bastion of racism,
a good country. That would be just like trying to make Margaret
Sanger into a "secular saint."

As I said, there's just too much damning information on Sanger. Progressives love her. I deem her a monster, within or without the context of her times. Her hagiographers have the upper hand, as Planned Parenthood must be safeguarded at all costs.

Please note, at least, that I qualified Sanger's influence on Hitler as "unwitting," as opposed to consciously promulgating evil (Robespierre/the Terror). perhaps our half-way position is that she was prominent in the Eugenics movement, which you acknowledge as being exported to Europe and, eventually, the Nazis.

History is written by the winners, you know. Right now the ideological descendants of Sanger and Paul Erlich are ascendant.

In my opinion it is the unbridled lust for power and dominion that causes men to do evil in the name of religion.

But what about the ones who are just following orders...?

Why do they carry out the actual minutia of the evil?

good people tend to do good things, bad people tend to do bad things, for good people to do bad things it takes religion

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good people tend to do good things, bad people
> tend to do bad things, for good people to do bad
> things it takes religion

Or it takes politics. Why ignore that?

After all, the brainwashing it takes to take a normal human being and reverse the natural inclination to not kill is enormous.

Every day people sign up for this form of brain washing, and then are sent over seas somewhere to, well, kill.

The brainwashing that goes into this process serves political ends, even if religion is sometimes used to get to this end. For example, what William G. "Jerry" Boykin did when saying, "And the enemy is a guy named Satan." No matter how religious Boykin is and how religious what he said is, the ultimate end was political.

The Marines are the greatest killing force ever created on earth. I believe they surpass the Roman legions. They are deployed to serve political ends. When religion is used to motivate some of them, for example calling the enemy "satan", that is secondary to the larger, political motivations.

Human