Religion, oh religion! You are such a contrarian. On the one hand, you have given us Mohatma Gandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, and Mother Theresa, all of whom have arguably done their best to make the world a better place for all of us. On the other hand, you have also given us Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jerry Fallwell, Pope Benedict XVI, and many more who have sought to destroy the rights of others in the name of religious liberty. I now wash my hands of you, for your filth outweighs your good (as if that never was true), and your stench is way too narrow and stifling for the call of freedom.

I sent the above as an email to another listserv I'm on in response to the article at

http://www.freep.com/article/20130322/NEWS15/303220178/Senate-committee-OKs-bill-allowing-health-providers-to-deny-services-based-on-moral-objections

Need I say more?

While those people were religious, they were also much more than just what their religion was.

Sure, my High School contributed to me becoming who I am... but can they claim my software as a direct product of their work? Of course not.

What religion was Ford, Tesla, or Edison? Why don't we focus on their religions? Yet as soon as the person does something "moral," then suddenly religion wants to take credit for their work.

Gandhi & Dr King are actually perfect examples. Their accomplishments were areligious, yet religion wants the credit.

Humans are a complex compilation of parts. No part can claim credit for the whole.

Dr. Martin Luther King was a minister and used his pulpit as the springboard for the seeking of racial integration.

Yes, HE used religion as a piece of what he did, not the other way around.

Dr King wasn't a piece of a religious movement, and he just played a role, but just the opposite.

I'm not saying that religion had no part, but as 1 small piece, it doesn't own the entirety of the credit (or even the majority).

I think you are both right and wrong. From what I've read, Dr. King was a religious person who used his position as a black Baptist minister (if memory serves) to gain support for the concept of racial integration. And although we'll never know, I highly doubt that Mr. King would have been nearly as successful with his campaign for racial integration had he not had emotional the zeal provided by his religion to push him onward.

I have read here and elsewhere (I never was a Mormon) that the Mormon religion is driven by pure emotion, regardless of factual information. I think the same could be said for any religion (though most do acknowledge some factual information), and the terrible reality is that people are spurred more to action by emotional responses to issues than to factual information.

So, in the end, your second response makes my initial point--that some religious people go on to do great things while many others often use religion as a way to destroy the lives of others.

We have culturally significant artwork and architecture left behind by almost all religions. From the Hindu and Buddhist Temples of the far east to the medieval cathedrals of Europe. Much of the renaissance was sponsored by the Catholic church.

True, but it can be argued very strongly that it was Christianity that destroyed the Roman Empire. Those marauders that sacked the city in 476 A.D. had been converted to Christianity prior to the sacking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2013 09:11PM by blindguy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

My close friend, who has been an exmo for years now and is so happy I have finally "seen the real light" shared this with me. You may enjoy it.

I think it should be kept in mind while watching the video that it wasn't God who wrote the Bible.

Good video. Exactly how I feel. There are people on this board who'd like to see the world free from religion. I'd like to see the gospel free from religion.

the truly good people I have known may have been associated with a religious entity, but were rarely "religious" They were mostly just good people that had good intentions. I think some religions take credit for people where credit isn't due.

How do you define "religious?" I suspect that part of how you define someone as "religious" is going to be, or lead to, poor behavior in itself.

Probably the first connotation that comes to my mind from the word is "closed minded."

As a person who lives with chronic pain, I would have hated Mother Teresa's guts if i'd met her face to face. She was busy playing God and decided who would and wouldn't suffer. Wrong headed at best, pure evil at worst. In any event, she wouldn't have been my friend.

Hitchens pretty much exposed MT for what she was: A political sham, who did absolutely NOTHING for the suffering people of the world...


What a joke