Does religion do more harm or good?

KSPAM: We sort of came to the conclusion that the vast majority of those circumstances involved State Religion.

Frankly, a theocracy is just too harmful for any reasonable guy's sake—Iran, anyone? Countries that have state religions, IMHO, might as well be theocracies.

@Raw: The literal translation reads "charity" instead of "love." These days, the two are in essence interchangeable.

The Southpaw has no brakes!

@Josef - what do you mean it wasn't defensive? That 2/3rds of the eastern christian kingdoms have been conquered, and that the turks were pushing furhter..that is not cause for alarm?

By that logic, if California gets invaded, the other 50 states shouldn't go help, because that's not reason enough to go to war.

People keep drawing religion as the main cause, but that's BS. It was as much a political decision as everything else. At some point, Europe as a entity (culture) had to strike back, or be destroyed.

Yes, some bad shit happened. Some crazy people got to lead armies and some political backstabbing took place. Europe wasn't as united as their opposition and a lot of the crap happened exactly because of that.

But guess what - shit happens. Happened then, happened in Vietnam, in WW 1, WW 2 and every other war ever. In modern day, we have more control and oversight and it STILL happens. Back then, with all the uneducated masses, no long-range communication, bad things were not uncommon to happen.

And yet, if I were to be transported in to those time, I'd still urge for the crusades. Cause I'm european, and I like the european culture.

Eh, it's not like they were bound by a common constitution or even had any form of alliance. You are aware that, in Al Andalus, Christian and Moorish kings would ally together against people on "their" side as often as with corelligionaries? As it was put in El Cid movie, they were all basically Spanish. Also, there were and still are plenty of Christians in Muslimland, it's not like it was forbidden or anything.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Bleh.

Even outside the issues of State Religion (or the remnants), there's still the issue of authoritarian morality and what what it does for our society/culture.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Really, guys? We were this close to resolving it peacefully.

/looks back

Oh. Our side fired first. Sorry, guys.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

If, like Abraham, God told you to behead your son, would you (try to) do it?

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

2/3rds of... Did you just miss byzantium? Just because an area is conquered (that the knights that went their had no claim to and whom the patriarch of Rome certainly had never seemed to be overly concerned with before) by a different religion doesn't make it ever a part of your remit, especially not as (for the most part) the Eastern Christians did not respect papal power and were more closely tied witht he Patriarch of Constantinople.

It's nothing like california getting invaded because thats part of the same nation, its like if the Falklands got invaded by (lets say) Brazil and France turned up to defend it whilst Britain does nothing. And even that is a clumsy metaphor because even that situation makes more sense than the Crusaders fighting a "defensive" war!

How can you ask for a "European" culture that didn't exist in a place that was only partially joined to Europe and call it defensive. Its utterly mental in almost every particular. And I also note that you ignored all the other Crusades I mentioned, which I can understand because they were wars of conquest given legitimacy by papal remit and I can understand an urge to bury them like so much refuse!

If you can call the near east at 1000 AD "European" then I officially claim China as part of American culture, because that makes about as much sense.

@Raw: You've picked the most ethically questionable part of religion I know of to represent the whole.

That said, I don't have kids.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Part of the war was because of the Muslim killing of Pilgrims, the Eastern Christians were disinterested up to that point.

And your seriously not understanding how things worked back then.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:19:11 AM by saladofstones3

What killing of Pilgrims? That was made up by the Byzantine Emperor in the letter he sent, and even then it wasn't "killing" so much as "charging more money" there is no evidence (now or then) to suggest that the Muslim rulers were worse than the Christian ones they replaced in the Levant. It was a cynical powergrab on behalf of Alexi Comnenus to ensure that he could get western support (or prefferably western armies) to take back the holy land for him.

Regardless of if it was made-up (which I don't believe it was, the Muslims weren't nice people back then either), the Western Christian powers had every reason to believe it.

As it is, taking back the Holy Land for Christiandom was a reason they believed in and judging it with modern values is uselessness incarnate.

And if I understand my rulers back then, the guy fucked himself over because he cut back his military, he needed foreign support, IIRC, he didn't really want the Crusaders since he felt they would be hard to control, which they were, and the Byzantine's undermined their own best interest many times in the campaign.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:26:39 AM by saladofstones3

I am not going to carry this on further because we are very far off topic, all I can suggest is researching into the Crusades from an (attempted) neutral Po V.

I already read on the Crusades from that point of view.

If you honestly think that life was worse enough under the muslim conquerers to warrant a crusade then you clearly haven't. At. All.

Listen, I didn't do it on purpose, but it horrifies me that, as a kid, I thought it was awesome. Basically it was  ^*

"OHMYGOD THIS IS THE GREATEST STORY I'VE EVER BEEN TOLD IN MY LIFE! What a wonderful man, how he trusts God and obeys Him, God tells him to kill his kid apparently for the hell of it (so to speak) and Abraham, while it pains him, because he is a good father, goes and does it! And while in the OT he hides it from his kid, in the Qran the kid is totally aware and supportive and encourages his father throughout the thing! Satan goes to tempt the kid personally into fleeing or at least resisting, and the kid turns him away with freaking stones! And he tries to tempt the mother into doing something about this, and the mother stones him away. They're smart, they won't be fooled by the evil devil! Just look how faithful they are to their husband and to God! What great people! I wish I was as obedient and trusting of authority figures as they were! Surely they are an example to all future generations! And, of course, the little boy doesn't dies, because God isn't actually evil, if the kid had died it would be kind of bad. I mean it's God, so it can't be bad if it's God doing it, but God is nice'', right? Of course he is. And in memory of this wonderful event every Muslim family slays a freaking lamb every freaking year and eat it together and it lasts them a couple of weeks, even more if you put the meat in jars of salted fat, they can last months like that."

Y'know what, I truly believed this. I really bought into that story's Aesop. Do you understand why I am so fucking resentful right now?

Now that I think of it, I am never doing this religious feast ever again. It sucks.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Since this is about religion, I'll bring this up as to whether it does more harm than good.

As it is, the Muslim's were good for the most of their existence up until shortly before the Crusades when attacks when up, IIRC, the seizing of several cities proved to be the last straw.

Regardless, the idea of the Muslim's in control of what was a Christian land was more than enough motivation for your average Crusader since it was, at heart, a holy war.

But your assuming, as well, that the Muslim's were any better and while they had their good points, I can't say that the Crusader's were wrong just because the Muslims were kind of nice, but the Muslim's did mistreat the Armenians (which the Crusaders ended up mistreating anyways, so there goes charity. :V) and so on.

The Muslims had plenty of warlords at this time and I wouldn't call them a largely cohesive force.

@Raw: Back then the treatment of children was wholly different, even under the Roman empire there was a legal maxim that stated that the son (I don't know if it was children in general) was the legal property of the father and the father can do as he wishes with them.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:39:50 AM by saladofstones3

Life was considerably better in the Arab countries at the time, really. Both were pretty brutally authoritarian though.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:40:28 AM by Pykrete

I wouldn't say considerably better, they seemed to break even.

Fair enough, YMMV.

THEY COULD FREAKING KILL THEM! THAT IS INSANE. Also, when they were grown up they couldn't kill them anymore. And there was no stated cutoff age.

-_-;

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Thread Hop.

To be honest, unless you spend assloads of time studying anthropology and such, this isn't a question that anyone has a right to claim they know the answer to.

There's also the issue of reducing every belief system on Earth into SCIENCE! and religion. It's nowhere near that simple, and claiming that it is is unnacceptable.

Also, atheism? A belief system. (Yes, it is. It firmly believes that there is nothing outside of physical reality and that the Universe came into existence from nowhere when something exploded. I won't go any further because I don't wish to be offensive.) The Scientific Method is a philosophy; it's not something inborn in humanity, you don't just wake up one day and apply it, it must be learned. It's important to keep in mind that everyone has a strong belief in something, whether that's God or atomic theory.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Atheism is literally simply a lack of a belief in a God. There are many different belief systems that are atheistic, but atheism is no more a belief system than animation is a genre.

I'll definitely grant you that The Scientific Method is itself a belief system, in the loosest sense at least. Usage of it tends to be a good indicator of the rationality of an individual.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:11:48 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Eh, rationality is overrated. As long as you're not being reckless or a douche to someone else, our whims and desires are what make life worth it.

edited 10th Jan '11 11:16:52 AM by Pykrete

No, I agree with Dia. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but an atheist's view of the creation of the universe is either that matter has always existed, reaching back to infinity in one little ball until one day it up and decided to explode; or that the universe spontaneously came into existence for no clearly defined reason.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.