Societies without God are more benevolent

[Judi Lynn]

Societies without God are more benevolent
The Pope's visit to Britain has been the perfect excuse for many commentators to traduce secularism
Nick Cohen The Observer, Sunday 12 September 2010

Writing sometime around the 10th century BC, the furious author of Psalm 14 thundered against those who say there is no God. "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." If the denunciations of wicked atheists coming from today's apologists for religion are any guide, the spirit of Iron Age Israel is abroad in 21st-century Britain.

In advance of the Pope's visit, clergymen and commentators are deploying every variety of bogus argument against those who advocate the superiority of secularism. Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs for the Catholic diocese of Westminster, led the way when he denounced the "wasteland" secularism produced. If he had been condemning the atheist tyrannies of communism and fascism, I would have no complaint. However, Adamus was not objecting to Cuba, China or North Korea, but to the wasteland of secular, democratic Britain "with its ever-increasing commercialisation of sex, not to mention its permissive laws advancing the 'gay' agenda".

Right-wing columnists and, depressingly but predictably in these appeasing times, left-wing journalists have joined the moaning chorus. The arguments of Geoffrey Robertson QC and Professor Richard Dawkins that the cops had grounds to ask the Pope to account for his church's failure to stop the rape of children in its care drove them wild. "The hysterical and abusive nature of some of the attacks on the Pope will do nothing but discredit secularism," said Andrew Brown in the Guardian. "I accept, of course, that lots of secular humanists are tolerant and reasonable people," says the more restrained and judicious Stephen Glover of the Mail. "But there is a hard core which embraces and promotes atheism with the blind fervour of religious zealots."

Not all of those who condemn atheism are pious themselves, as the presence of journalists among their number suggests. Rather, they believe in piety for the masses and fear that without religion the lower orders will lose their moral bearings. "All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician and ridiculous to the philosopher," said Lucretius. And behind many of the demands of today's religious apologists that we "respect" Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and even the Scientology cult lies a desire to keep the plebs in their place by protecting their ridiculous but politically useful beliefs. Although I am proud to be on the board of the National Secular Society, Britain's most urgently needed pressure group, I am not a militant atheist. I have seen too many vicars being moved by their Anglicanism to dedicate their lives to others to agree with Christopher Hitchens's bald statement that "religion poisons everything".

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism

[Tsiyu]

1. I just can't get

the deification of one gender while demonizing the other in the name of spiritual sanctification.

That's a recipe for a screwy society.

Flying with only one wing you won't get far.

[safeinOhio]

2. Ethical atheism

Hard to argue with it.

[stray cat]

3. They forbid anyone of faith from living in the country and then run experiments?

[blueworld]

4. Which societies? There's a lot of sweeping generalization in the article

The only secular society he mentions is Sweden & as of 2008, 72.9% of their population belonged to the Church of Sweden. In 2009, that dropped to 71.3%, but their church attendance has always been sparse.

Apparently their tolerance & adherence to their Constitution in the justice system isn't dependent on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. They require ALL religions be taught in their public schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
"Religious groups that want to receive government aid may apply for it. The Government considers the number of members in the group and its length of establishment, but applies no specific criteria.

Religious education covering all major world religions is compulsory in public schools. Parents may send their children to independent religious schools, all of which receive government subsidies, provided they adhere to government guidelines on core academic curriculum."

[Odin2005]

5. If you can be made to believe absurdities you can be made to commit atrocities.

--Voltaire

[wookie72]

65. "Wikiquote is a useful tool for useful tools"

-Me

[humblebum]

6. Hitchens also called for religion to treated with

"ridicule, hatred, and contempt". Very benevolent.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Do you treat RW Republican ideals with benevolence?

I'm sure if I did a search I would find no posts in which you were negative toward Bush.

I always like how so many people on here complain about Hitchens and others who are negative toward religion and then those same people say equal levels of things toward ideologies they don't agree with.

[humblebum]

10. Um? you would have a hard time finding someone who was more

anti-Bush than me and there's really no excuse for hatemongering as Hitchens clearly does, as is evidenced by his words. If you defnding that kind of talk then you are part of the problem. BTW, there are strong similarities between the 2 men if you ignore the religious bents. Both share certain neo-con views.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Well that sounds pretty non-benevolent of you

Why do you get to rail against that which you dislike but Hitchens can't? Because it is against religion? That is somehow protected when Bush isn't.

I don't care if Bush and Hitchens have similarities. You admit that you and Hitchens have similarities in that you attack that which you don't agree with. Yet you give yourself a pass.

[humblebum]

15. There is a difference between hate speech and expressing political

opinions, or weren't you aware of that.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Tomato, Tomahto

You don't think you are engaging in hate speech because you are doing it. You think he is because you hate vocal atheists.

[cleanhippie]

33. Expressing the opinion that religion is delusion is hate speech?

Really?

[humblebum]

36. When did I ever say that? nt

[onager]

8. What a grump! Here, have a nice hug...

[trotsky]

11. That's a lovely ad hom.

Your specialty, that's for sure.

Got anything to dispute the OP? Didn't think so.

[humblebum]

12. You are just defending a fellow trotskyite. nt

[trotsky]

14. And you have no facts, only ad homs.

(I'm not even going to try to explain to you again how my username has nothing to do with Leon Trotsky.)

[humblebum]

16. If you don't want people to associate the name trotsky with Trotsky

I suggest you change you name, because many of your views resemble his too.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Nice ad hom

I think it would be understandable the first time that mistake was made. The fact that I have seen you make the implication about 5 times with him explaining it makes it pretty rude on your part.

[humblebum]

22. Excuse me for confusing trotsky with trotsky. nt

[Goblinmonger]

24. AGAIN, this isn't the first time.

You've done it before. He's told you several times. You continue to do it.

[humblebum]

25. We' d have a ball with the name "Adolph", wouldn't we? nt.

[humblebum]

17. And what "facts" are you disputing? Telling the truth is hardly an ad hom.

[trotsky]

20. I can't dispute any facts, because you've given none.

You have nothing to say about the observations in the OP, you've only brought personal attacks, directed at both Hitchens and now me.

But clearly you yourself lend support to the OP - having Jesus in your life hasn't made you benevolent in the least. He must be so proud of you.

[humblebum]

21. If disputing hate speech is wrong then count me guilty. nt

[trotsky]

23. Where's the hate speech in the OP?

We have yet to see you point out anything other than how much you despise Christopher Hitchens. Wasn't there some dude who said you were supposed to love your enemies? Clearly you must not follow him.

[humblebum]

26. I'm must have missed something in the words "ridicule, hatred, and contempt".

There must be a hidden meaning in there somewhere. I know! Instead of his exhortation to show ridicule, hatred and contempt, he must have said "no" ridicule, hatred, and contempt. Yes, that must have been it! And who said the words were in the op?

[trotsky]

27. Silly me.

I thought you actually had something to say regarding the topic of this thread. You just wanted to show your hatred for Chris Hitchens. Love thine enemies indeed. Who is it you follow, anyway?

[humblebum]

28. Have I ever said I hatred Christopher Hitchens? Absolutely not. In fact ,

I wish him well in his current battle, but that kind of talk should never be tolerated in a "tolerant" society. Hate speech inflames, degrades, separates.

[trotsky]

29. Your posts absolutely drip with hatred.

You slam any and every atheist every chance you get, linking them to Communist mass murderers for no reason whatsoever other than a common lack of belief in gods. You attack me personally for my choice of username, despite being told repeatedly it has nothing to do with Leon Trotsky.

Hate speech inflames, degrades, separates.

Interesting how your posts inflame those you address, degrade atheists, and separate atheists from believers. Now I know how to classify them. "Love your enemies" is a total joke to you. Some Christian you are. You need to take a good long look at yourself and your decidedly non-Christlike behavior.

[humblebum]

30. One only needs to take a look at the list of topics on this board

to see what group is the focus of most of the criticism. And please, get off that kick of telling others how they need to act as Christians. There is nothing wrong with confronting hate speech. That is merely another excuse some atheists use to justify their hatred for those who believe. And as far as linking every atheist to atrocity carried out by atheistic dictators, you know that's not true. But it is also true that those things did happen and were NOT carried out by believers. this proves of course that religion is not the major source of atrocities throughout history as some of you are constantly trying to portray.

[xfundy]

31. OMG! You're being persecuted!

You can believe whatever you like, including that donkeys can talk and an invisible man watches you every minute and takes notes.

But your views on spiritual matters should affect government why, exactly?

[humblebum]

32. No more than yours should. nt

[cleanhippie]

34. The only one that seems hateful here is you.

Too bad you are blind to it, even though many point it out.

[humblebum]

35. Let me see. As I am looking at the list of topics here I have

yet to see one that is not criticizing Christians or Christianity. Guess I must be blind to all those criticizing anything else. Wait! I found one , NO two!

[trotsky]

38. So now "criticism" = "hate speech"?

What a strange world of imagined persecution you live in.

[cleanhippie]

39. Since when did criticism become hate speech?

Only in your world, I guess, but not here in reality.

[humblebum]

40. Where did I ever say it was hate speech? Just like you to twist things.

The only statement I referred to as hate speech were Hitchens' words calling for people to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt... ." I have no problem calling an exhortation to hate "hate speech". By the same token, militant atheism should never consider itself free from criticism. That does NOT constitute hate speech as you are implying.

[cleanhippie]

42. Right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=259304&mesg_id=259411

[cleanhippie]

43. and here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=259304&mesg_id=259397

[humblebum]

44. You are saying that criticism is hate speech. Atheists nor any other group

is immune from criticism. When someone is rallying people to hate as clearly as Hitchens does by telling people to "hate" - it's pretty easy to consider that hate speech. So referring to Hitchens engaging in hate speech of that I am guilty. And as far as the list of topics, they are what they are.

[trotsky]

46. No, YOU said that.

We don't want your arguments. We see how pathetic they are.

[humblebum]

47. Show me where I said that. I think you are seriously confusing

criticism with hatred.

[trotsky]

50. No, that's what you did.

When asked to provide examples of hate speech, you yourself (in post #35) said the examples were merely criticizing Christianity.

Your ability to deny reality is truly astounding. You might be a nice guy if you could just follow the teachings of that Jesus fellow and learn a little humility, tolerance, and love.

[cleanhippie]

61. No, no, no, no,no. YOU ARE SAYING THAT.

Nice try, but no cigar. Fail as usual.

[trotsky]

37. Ah the old, "but Ma, he did it first" playground excuse.

I thought Christians were supposed to be better than that. Oh well, at least I know now that you are definitely not one.

[humblebum]

41. The Bible also warns that anyone who witnesses a wrong and

stays silent about it, is as guilty as the one who is wrong. Calling for "hatred, ridicule, and contempt" is wrong and history proves that it can turn into something very dangerous.

[trotsky]

45. But you claimed that criticism = hate speech.

And you haven't given one shred of support for that. Well, other than it being criticism of something dear to you. You feel more than free to shit all over everyone else.

You make baby Jesus cry.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

51. And that's a personal attack.

Way to go.

[humblebum]

52. So claiming that someone said something that you know to be false

is not a personal attack? You have no proof of my personal feelings nor any statement confirming your accusation, and yet you say i am attacking you. I am more inclined to call it defense. But then again we both know how you operate, don't we?

[trotsky]

53. The proof is in this thread.

I'm perfectly fine with leaving it on display. Everyone else will know the truth, even if you refuse to see it.

[humblebum]

54. You have not one shred of evidence where I ever claim hatred for atheists.

You are relying on subjective interpretation and relying on subjective anything is usually out of character for atheists. So what is plain from the thread and from the list of topics is that criticism is everywhere and by your definition then, hatred is displayed everywhere. I can prove my accusation of hate speech by Hitchens objectively by providing a specific quote. that you cannot do.

[trotsky]

55. But that wasn't the claim you were asked to back up.

You've given it the old college try to obfuscate and distract as you desperately backed away from the claim you WERE asked to substantiate, but you failed miserably. As usual. I suggest you look into this guy who said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, and be meek. Clearly you haven't learned anything about him yet.

[humblebum]

56. You evidently have a very limited knowledge of Scripture and yes

I have backed up my claim.

[trotsky]

57. Keep saying that.

Maybe someday it will come true.

[humblebum]

58. OK I will as long as holds true. And here is an example of my

expressing of your so called "dripping hatred" for atheists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x259264#259282

[trotsky]

59. The jury's still out on the "true" part, sadly.

You keep dreaming though. And good luck becoming a Christian someday!

[humblebum]

60. Your still feigning victimization, I see. Always your ace in the hole.

And you still have yet to provide objective evidence of your accusation.

[trotsky]

62. As usual, you twist things around and try to shift your burden of proof.

Not playing your game. You lose.

[humblebum]

64. Nice dodge. nt

[DeSwiss]

9. K&R

- By now, this should surprise no one......

[frogmarch]

49. LOL :-D

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. Hitchens has not attacked specific people.

He has merely pointed out the horrible and cruel things that people do because their religion tells them to, and people take that as hate speech.

Evil things done in the name of religion or faith should NOT get a pass. That's what Hitchens is against.

If you had read his memoir Hitch-22, you would know that he is no longer a Trotskyite or a communist, and he was some years ago disillusioned by Communism. He realized that Communism doesn't work because some people will always get favors from the government, and others won't.

[wookie72]

66. "Hitchens has not attacked specific people."

Um... Henry Kissinger, Mother Theresa and a few others might have something to say about that. In fact, Hitchens himself would probably have a problem with that.

And as for "evil things done in the name of religion and faith," that's one thing. But Hitchens tries to deny that good things are done in the name of religion. He claims that MLK "wasn't really" a believer, sort of a reverse of the "true Christian" argument.

[wookie72]

67. The argument puts the cart before the horse.

Why has religion eroded in Scadinavia? Because they have a strong social safety net, not the other way around. When people are more comfortable, they think less about the need for religion. (And, if the current fiction coming out of Sweden is any indication, it's hardly the secular paradise people think it is. Angst is angst wherever you are).

Conversely, the use of statistics about prisoners is equally facile, since many people turn to religion when they are down and out. (There has been much good work done by Buddhist monks with convicts that no one would otherwise reach, including death-row inmates).