BEAR on 3/12/2008 at 02:48

---

The older I get the more I look at everything in that way. I can see myself becoming a non-functioning member of society in the next 10 years ;)



That's pretty much right. I've thought a lot about this, I know its slightly off topic from the OP but we're talking about killing so whatever.

People talk about how we're the only species to actively kill members of our own species and what not (which isn't true anyways, chimps do eerily human acts and kill members of different groups). From an evolutionary perspective, killing each other must have had (or still has) some function, because not all species do it, but some do, like us. Something that has played such a huge role in our development as a species would seem unlikely to occur by accident (or be propagated by accident, all evolution is an accident of some kind). It seems to always take the same forms all over:

a) murder, killing a member of ones own group with justification (almost always frowned upon).
b) murder against members of a competing group, which is tolerated if not encouraged at times, and
c) total random killing of members of ones own group in an unpredictable manor (ie serial killing, serious social deviants).

I know you could come up with more, but these are the big ones I notice. Religion to me just seems another way to set one group apart from another. Add to that the fact that it is based of beliefs that have (and need) no realistic basis, and you have the recipe for problems. Thats what sets religiously based killing or conflict particularly dangerous. It doesn't do anything that we as human are not all capable of, but it sets people apart in such a extreme way as to guarantee strife.

Thats why religion is so scary. A lot of religious people would find atheists scary probably, because it would seem so incredible to them. But for the most part, religious people have a lot less to fear of atheists than atheists do from religious people. Even if religion seems stupid at times, I make an attempt to understand it and how it fits into our world, because I need to understand it. They don't need to understand anything, and its by their nature I think and not by some personal choice that they can be blamed for.

Its hard to see if things are getting better or worse overall, religious extremism is very visible but I don't know if its nearly as dangerous as it has been in the past. Much the same way we see violence, it might seem we're very violent but compared to the past we're really less (though our capacity for violence is greater). I wonder if religion is not the same way, I certainly hope so.

I was thinking that as big a milestone as a black president is, an atheist president would be the next big one to me (because I think a woman is a given, its just a matter of time, and probably not that much time). I can't see Americans voting in an atheist for a good long while.

edit:


I know what you are trying to say, but you are reading me wrong. We're talking about the founding of America, not the reason for colonizing north America. I know that religion was important to the people of early America in particular, but religious persecution comes at the hands of religion as often or more often than anything else. Its safe to say that religion has been a big part of everything everywhere for pretty much forever (regrettably), the question is did religious principles and theology play a part in the founding principles of our country and the people who founded it. The answer that, for the most part, is no.

fett on 3/12/2008 at 15:00

---

Nah. If you dig just a little you'll find that the Crusades had very little in common with what Queue is talking about, or the modern evangelical mindset (and persecution didn't begin with the Crusades either, it began when the Jews persecuted the sect of the Nazarenes in the mid-first century, and if you want to go further back, the Assyrians persecuted every territory they annexed over religious differences. Going back FARTHER into Chinese history....you get the idea ). The minds behind the Crusades used Christianity for Imperialistic purposes, whereas modern evangelical (particularly those of the Reconstructionist camp) want to use the government as a tool to fix modern Christianity and indirectly, America. There isn't much thought given to world-conquering - their concern has more to do with restoring American morality.

Also not sure what 'missions' you're talking about where zillions were 'wiped out'. Since about 1850, Christian and Catholic missionaries have done more tangible charitable work than all other charitable organizations combined (including the Red Cross).

Also, what do the Iraq and Afgan wars have to do with Christianity? Are you sure you're not just regurgitating pent-up frustrations from not being called on in high-school humanities discussions?

rachel on 3/12/2008 at 17:06

---

What about swearing on the Bible before taking office?

Actually now I think about it, what happens when a sikh or a muslim or an atheist are called as witness in court? Do they just swear to tell the truth?
(Genuinely curious here, I've never seen the situation depicted although it certainly must have happened at some point)

edit: did some research and found "If you are of a non-Christian faith or you would prefer to take an affirmation, you may want to notify the court of this ahead of time, so that a suitable oath can be administered."

Thank you Google.

So I guess by extension similar alternate oaths exist for office...

Hier on 3/12/2008 at 18:23

---

You guys should move to Canada. Absolutely nobody has any illusions of our founders being born-again Christians. Our first Prime Minister was so drunk at a public debate that vomited all over himself, and then blamed it on his opponent.

Although it makes for some painful family discussions where dad wistfully longs for us to be more like the US. "Now there... that's a history to be proud of."

Starrfall on 3/12/2008 at 22:54

---

They might swear on the bible, but what they swear to do is uphold the Constitution, not their religion. You can swear on whatever you want

There was some bitching in 2006 I believe about the first Muslim congressman who was going to swear in on the Koran. He threw it back in their faces by swearing in on a Koran previously owned by Thomas Jefferson.