Why we need religion.... (1 Viewer)

[robbie1]

Why we need religion - By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 18, 2007

"I WOULD ban religion completely," British pop-music star Elton John said in a much-noted interview last November. "It turns people into hateful lemmings, and it's not really compassionate."

It isn't exactly news that many people find religion odious, but what is being called the New Atheism has lately become a booming industry. A profusion of books, articles, and lectures extols secularism and derides faith in God as pernicious and absurd. Such antipathy to religion was once relegated to the edges of polite society. Today it shows up front and center.

A California congressman is cheered for announcing that he is an atheist. A New York Times Magazine cover story -- "Why Do We Believe?" -- considers "evolutionary adaptation" and "neurological accident" as explanations for religious belief, but not the possibility that God may actually exist. A forthcoming book by Christopher Hitchens, a noted journalist, is titled "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Yet you rarely have to look far to be reminded of the indispensability of God and religion .

On the front page of Sunday's Boston Globe, a photo shows the Rev. Wayne Daly walking with two Boston police officers through Grove Hall in Roxbury. "Targeting areas racked by deadly violence," the caption explains, "members of the Black Ministerial Alliance began an effort yesterday to pair with police as intermediaries."

Some 50 priests and ministers will fan out across the city's most dangerous precincts, knocking on doors and introducing residents to the police officers patrolling their neighborhoods. The goal is to break through the intimidation or distrust that often keeps residents from speaking up about criminal activity. "Underpinning the alliance's strategy," a news story notes, "is the idea that residents in these neighborhoods . . . may be more willing to talk to law enforcement officials in the future if ministers have paved the way."

No doubt Hitchens and Sir Elton would find this unfathomable. If religion transforms decent people into "hateful lemmings," why turn for help to the local clergy? If religion "poisons everything," who in his right mind would trust men for whom religious witness is a way of life?

Of course, most of us have no trouble understanding why the pastors are regarded as honest brokers, or why officials hope their involvement will make the city safer. But here's a better question: What prompts these ministers to stick their necks out? Why do they want to be allies of the police in neighborhoods where gangs are ruthless toward "snitches" and other good citizens? For that matter, why do they go into urban ministry in the first place? Surely there are easier, safer, or more lucrative ways to make a living.

There are. But the ministers are driven by a Judeo-Christian moral calculus in which goodness and devotion to others are worth more than an easy, safe, or lucrative career. Judeo-Christian morality demands decency and loving-kindness of its followers -- not as a matter of reason or opinion or "evolutionary adaptation," but of God's will. And from that moral impulse comes the selflessness and strength to rise above oneself.

"I see that moral impulse at work every day," Christian leader Charles Colson has written, "when 50,000 volunteers in Prison Fellowship . . . go into horrid holes, loving the most unlovable people in the world. You don't do that out of any kind of human instinct -- it is contrary to selfish human nature."

Can ardent secularists, firm in their belief that there is no God to whom we must answer and no morality except that which human beings devise, be good and loving people? Sure they can. And yet when acts of charity and goodness are most needed, it isn't generally groups of New Atheists who are seen answering the call. Who is more likely to care for paupers dying in the streets of Calcutta? Secular humanist associations? Or Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, who take God's word -- "Therefore love the stranger" -- as a binding obligation? When Boston's police need moral and trustworthy intermediaries, do they find them in an organization that campaigns against religion? Or in the Black Ministerial Alliance?

The world Elton John dreams of -- a world in which religion is banned -- is one we have already glimpsed. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot showed us what lies at the end of that road. Of course there are exceptions to every rule; of course not everyone who believes in God is good; of course dreadful things have been done in the name of all religions. But a world without God would be an evil place indeed.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/18/why_we_need_religion/

 

[Triangulum]

Who is more likely to care for paupers dying in the streets of Calcutta? Secular humanist associations? Or Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, who take God's word -- "Therefore love the stranger" -- as a binding obligation?

Invalid comparison. 'Secular humanist associations' don't exist to do charity work, so it's unreasonable to compare them to an organisation that exists to do just that. But there are plenty of non-religious charities, and lots and lots and lots of secular humanists donate to charity or do charity work. Even though - gasp! - they're not religious. Because morality doesn't depend on religion. Yes, there are plenty of religious charities that do good work. And I agree that religion shouldn't be 'banned'. But there's no need to come up with these ridiculous arguments about how 'secular humanists' want to kill puppies or something.

 

[volition]

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot showed us what lies at the end of that road. Of course there are exceptions to every rule; of course not everyone who believes in God is good; of course dreadful things have been done in the name of all religions. But a world without God would be an evil place indeed.

Not a fair comparison as far I'm concerned, most Atheists wouldn't support their(Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) actions... Scratch that, most PEOPLE wouldn't support their actions. People need to be judged on individual merits, we can't have this generalising unless they are all doing something wrong.

Killing is wrong, whether you are christian or not.

It's also stupid to suggest that the world needs God to be moral (and would therefore be an 'evil' world without God), for obvious reasons.

 

[bazookajoe]

Not a fair comparison as far I'm concerned, most Atheists wouldn't support their(Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) actions... Scratch that, most PEOPLE wouldn't support their actions. People need to be judged on individual merits, we can't have this generalising unless they are all doing something wrong.

Yet it's interesting how many people lump all the Christians together...

 

[S1M0]

That's a great article you've posted there, and i agree with it, but:

You're gonna get flamed so hard its not going to be funny.

Then again, great post!

 

[Triangulum]

Yet it's interesting how many people lump all the Christians together...

Dawkins and co. are idiots. Reasonable people don't lump all Christians together.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Way to ridiculously overanalyse what Elton John probably said in light passing.

Obviously he's referring to people who judge homosexuality through no other way than their uninformed prejudices, which is strengthened by their religion. I acknowledge that some churches will stress that homosexuality is a sin, the same way as stealing is a sin; that all sins are equal and we're all sinners etc, but others will hate homosexuality like it's the mother of all sins.

The problem with arguing about these sort of matters is that religion isn't always consistent; there's always so much selectivism that we can give or take priorities, even if we're talking about one denomination alone. Yes the one message about love and Jesus will probably be consistent, but with particulars, it's another story. One man praying at church really doesn't give a shit if a gay couple lived next to him, or if his wife wasn't a virgin when he married her, but another man might.

Can ardent secularists, firm in their belief that there is no God to whom we must answer and no morality except that which human beings devise, be good and loving people? Sure they can. And yet when acts of charity and goodness are most needed, it isn't generally groups of New Atheists who are seen answering the call. Who is more likely to care for paupers dying in the streets of Calcutta? Secular humanist associations? Or Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, who take God's word -- "Therefore love the stranger" -- as a binding obligation? When Boston's police need moral and trustworthy intermediaries, do they find them in an organization that campaigns against religion? Or in the Black Ministerial Alliance?

That paragraph made me sick in the stomach. On a bit of a high horse there? What the fuck was that? Go "oh but secularists can be good... just not as good". What was the point of that paragraph really? Unfair comparisons, I feel. Neverthless I think if Australian people decided to be charitable, they'd do it as individuals from the kindness of their heart, not from their values, whether secular or religious.

I also really dislike this article for lumping non-believers and believers into two extremes. It's not some good versus evil bullshit.

Anyway, I don't think banning religion is ever a good idea.

All in all, what a horrible article.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This article doesn't show why we need religion, it is a defense of religious people as being with moral character (atheists generally don't attack this, elton john's little tantrum would be laughable to most atheists I know).

And yet when acts of charity and goodness are most needed, it isn't generally groups of New Atheists who are seen answering the call.

Atheist groups are so pathetically tiny that they have enough trouble getting in the funding to maintain themselves. But if you looked into it you would find that yes, they do help out with various charitable causes, of course their effect isn't as big (we're talking groups of less than 1000 people at the largest) but the drive is still there.

Who is more likely to care for paupers dying in the streets of Calcutta?

Good example because I happen to know a fair bit about the secular organisations of india. These are organisations of poor, however educated, people who go out of their way, in a small little bus around the country, to convince people that these 'godmen' who offer them cures of illness are nothing but fakes. It might also be of some interest to note that one of India's great hero's is an atheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswathi_Gora , read about her story there's only a few paragraphs on wiki but you should be able to google some more.

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot showed us what lies at the end of that road. Of course there are exceptions to every rule; of course not everyone who believes in God is good; of course dreadful things have been done in the name of all religions. But a world without God would be an evil place indeed.

Weak.

--------------------------

The fact is that the majority of charities these days are secular and even if they were founded on some 'judeochristian' principle(s) they are now in essence secular. Perhaps many of the people working for them are driven by their own dreams of a christian god, but what I'd like to see is percentage wise how many non-religious people work for these charities.

This article started off ok, I'm fine with people who want to defend the moral character of the religious (if they feel it's under attack, I don't) but when you then go to cast aspersions on those who don't believe in God - That's just low. It seems although he's turning charity into another weapon in the church's PR arsenal (which is what I'd argue its purpose often serves), charity isn't about who does it better, it's about giving to others.

I think you'll find that on the whole atheists are more likely to be on the left, more supportive of more funding for public programs/charities etc and more willing to be taxed heavily.

Concerning Christian Charity
by Dr. Tim Gorski, Pastor
The North Texas Church of Freethought
http://church.freethought.org
(first printed in Positive Atheism, July, 1999)

Christian apologists often insist that their religion promotes extraordinary generosity and altruism. As proof, they point to Christian-sponsored hospitals, clinics, schools, colleges, homeless shelters, halfway houses, and other educational and charitable organizations. “And where are the atheist hospitals?” they tauntingly ask. “We don’t see any atheist programs to help the poor and needy,” they jeer.

But these claims are far weaker than they may appear. In Muslim countries, for example, there are Muslim schools and charities. In countries dominated by Buddhists we see Buddhist institutions. Even in Cuba, there are schools, hospitals, and public aid organizations, a fact that is frequently pointed to by apologists for Castro. So why should it be thought unusual that, where Christians are to be found in great numbers, there also are to be found Christian-sponsored charitable organizations?

Then there is the history of Christianity in the West. As recently as a few hundred years ago, it was dangerous, if not fatal, to so much as openly doubt Christian theological doctrines. That is the practical form that “Christian love” and “Christian charity” has taken for the overwhelming part of its history. Its ferocity was only moderated by the innovative principle of state-church separation, a principle still denied and denounced by the most energetic of Christian zealots. How, then, can special merit be accorded to Christianity? What is so singularly virtuous about doing what others are forcibly prevented from doing? And how honest and principled is it, given these circumstances, for Christians to claim exceptional virtue for themselves while disparaging their historical victims?

Even today, unbelievers are relentlessly reviled by many Christian leaders. Consider the following recent statements by U.S. leaders:

* “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” [Vice-President George Bush]

* “The fact that we have freedom of religion doesn’t mean we need to try to have freedom from religion.” [President William Jefferson Clinton]

* “Radicals and atheists are destroying families.” [First Lady Hillary Rodham-Clinton]

Given the context of Christians’ past and current treatment of those with contrary religious opinions, it is outrageous for anyone to point to Christian educational and charitable organizations as “proof” that Christianity excels at promoting compassion and humanitarianism. Those who make such fraudulent claims are like those who said, a century ago and more, that the absence of blacks and women in political office or other positions of responsibility “proved” that they lacked the character and intellect to vote or pursue professional careers. Then, as now, faith-blinded Christian apologists who are unwilling or unable to think excel in circular reasoning and question-begging, not in generosity or human feeling.

If Christianity were so spectacularly marked by the urge to give to others without asking anything in return, Christian institutions would have done far more than they have. As it is, almost all religious hospitals, clinics, schools, and colleges charge and collect fees that are the same as, or very little different than, similar non-religious organizations. Those associated with religious groups may receive modest or token subsidies, either in the form of cash from generous believers (and unbelievers!) or in the form of free labor provided by an order of monks, nuns, priests, and other volunteers. But the secular organizations engaged in the same activities manage not only to survive without such help but pay taxes to the state and dividends to their shareholders as well. A reasonable person would conclude that the religiously-affiliated schools and hospitals, far from being praiseworthy examples of altruism, are, in fact, inefficient and wasteful of money and resources.

Of course, shelters for the homeless and battered women, food banks, soup kitchens, and the like do not charge fees. They survive, almost without exception, on a variety of grants. Most often, these are government grants. But this is no less true of organizations affiliated with religious groups as with those that are not. Catholic Charities, for example, gets the majority of its funding from taxpayers. Charitable organizations also rely on the United Way and other funding sources that draw on society generally rather than on adherents of any specific religion. Even the bell-ringing Salvation Army “Santas” rely on the ordinary generosity of people generally, and not just on that of theologically-correct Christians. Meanwhile, just as in the case of schools and hospitals, these religious-affiliated charitable organizations enjoy special advantages. Virtually all of them own land and other untaxed properties. In many cases, they enjoy streams of income from these assets as well as other unrelated activities, all of which are also untaxed. This represents a large subsidy from Christians and non-Christians alike, even for those religious organizations that do not receive outright grant monies from the taxpayers.

It is arguable whether such subsidies are a good value for the benefits received, even if they were not unconstitutional violations of state/church separation. But they are subsidies nonetheless. It is an abuse of the facts, of reason, and of the spirit in which these subsidies are given for anyone to claim that the success of the recipient organizations demonstrate the superiority of the religions with which they are affiliated. More importantly, it illustrates the wisdom of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which was intended to prevent this diversion of public funds to the support of religious proselytization.

This brings us to the most disturbing feature of religious “charities.” For they are not motivated primarily by a compassionate desire to alleviate human suffering or the generous inclination to advance the cause of human happiness. This was well shown by many of the pronouncements of one of the most celebrated of Christian charitable leaders, the late, but still revered “Mother Theresa,” who said: “I think it is very good when people suffer. To me, that is like the kiss of Jesus...” The same fundamental indifference both to human suffering and happiness is at the root of Christian groups’ opposition not only to abortion but also to birth control and assisted reproductive technologies. Nowhere is this better shown than when religious charities are forced to choose between humanitarianism and their own theological teachings. Holy spirits beat flesh and blood human beings every time.

Thus the chief motivation for Christian “charity” is not love of humanity at all. It is love of Christian dogmas and doctrines. For Christian teachings do not hold that good works are good in themselves. Rather, good works merely serve to show the inward theological correctness that Christians believe is necessary to win entry into heaven and escape damnation. Good works are merely the “signs and wonders” that prove Christianity’s divine authority. Most of all, good works are the bait to lure potential converts and the cost of being “saved.” All of which demonstrates not that the Christian religion is morally superior, but that it is morally bankrupt.

Meanwhile, it turns out that there are secular schools, hospitals, clinics, homeless shelters, and other charities that do without Christian theology and Christian “morals.” In fact, there are two varieties of them. There are those sponsored by various government agencies. And there are the previously mentioned private organizations, both non-profit and for-profit. Both public and private secular institutions have been far more successful at alleviating human suffering and promoting human happiness than any religion has ever been.

It is true, of course, that the funds extracted from taxpayers to pay for many of these secular programs are collected under threat of civil and criminal law. For this reason, it is often said that no moral credit ought to be imputed for the work they do. Yet religious organizations also depend on monies collected through taxation. Nor do they ever tire in seeking a greater share of it. It cannot be more praiseworthy for Christian charitable groups to spend these funds than for the government or a private secular organization to spend them. In fact, the opposite is the case. For the charitable Christian groups’ interest is primarily in advancing the Christian religion with humanitarianism a distant secondary goal. In addition, however unworthy the tool of taxation may be, traditional Christian methods of collecting money, property, and treasure are far worse. The power of the state, after all, is obviously limited. But Christians claim that those who do not cooperate with them will suffer eternal torture in hellfire.

Not long ago, Christians enthusiastically delivered those who failed to cooperate to earthly flames well in advance of the alleged hellfire. But this is not what most of us today think of as generosity, charity, and loving-kindness.

 

[zdzislaw]

Is it right that religion is the cause of so much worldwide suffering, emotional angst and disgustinly financial hardship?
The bible is against all of these things, religion is simply another business with the facade of a innocence and purity religion somehow gives it.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Is it right that religion is the cause of so much worldwide suffering, emotional angst and disgustinly financial hardship?
The bible is against all of these things, religion is simply another business with the facade of a innocence and purity religion somehow gives it.

Any form of extremism, whether religious or not seems to do damage.

Anyway, I suppose it's unfair to blame world suffering's onto one little book. My vote is a good education... critical thinking etc. There's nothing really wrong with a religious person who takes the main principles of religion to heart; love thy neighbour, love Jesus/Allah whatever, being tolerant, consider your actions and how they'd affect people etc.

But then its your perceptions/prejudices against non-believers, or those who don't believe as strongly as you (ie those who indulge in sins that you don't) that makes the difference.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'd argue that nobody, christian or atheist, does compassionate deeds primarily to alleviate human suffering. More like they do it to alleviate their own guilt. Dunno if i believe in altruism really.

I agree, but I'd also say you're a much better person if you can find ways to further your own causes while helping out others.

Sigh. Way to ridiculously overanalyse what Mother Theresa probably said in light passing :/

I agree, but I also think the case against mother theresa is actually pretty strong. She isn't what the church would make her out to be.

 

[simplistic]

one thing we probably all agree on is that extreamists in any religion seem to ruin everything for others

 

[jb_nc]

im atheist, maybe you faggots should deal with it *gives 20 minute rant to christians about why they are fucking stupid*

 

[Not-That-Bright]

im atheist, maybe you faggots should deal with it *gives 20 minute rant to christians about why they are fucking stupid*

Constructive post.

 

[Serius]

I always thought we needed religion to control the simple minded masses and keep them in line. A worker who thinks that he if he listens to his master and works hard, he will get eternal life and 72 virgins and riches and happyness isnt going to rebel is he?

 

[HotShot]

I always thought we needed religion to control the simple minded masses and keep them in line. A worker who thinks that he if he listens to his master and works hard, he will get eternal life and 72 virgins and riches and happyness isnt going to rebel is he?

Religion is in essence having a form belief. Quite simply everyone has different beliefs - its this point that people dont get into their heads. There maybe two christians - but I can assure you both will have a few different beliefs.

Its when you start impose your beliefs on others - especially through force that trouble begins. This is true for anything whether it be in science, religion, political ideology or economic policy. Even which programming langauge to use when writing a code.

Singing styleS? why do you people like RAP or ROCk - beliefs? that connotation that RAP has with gangsta bling and ROCK weaklings with their DBZ style hair.

You tell someone that your friend is RAP Artist - there is no doubt and the other erson will have a belief that your friends wears baggy clothes, wrist bands etc.

SO Religion itself doesnt do much when to problems in society. Problems in society exist because I belive we humans are not perfect, we might exceptionally smart compare to other creatures - but we are too intelligent for our own good, in the sense we can t tolerate anyone different from us. You look at anyway this occurs:

You pick on blacks. You get picked on for picking on Blacks. You get picked on because you picked on the dude that picked onthe blacks etc..differences..we cant handle them.

 

[bazookajoe]

“And where are the atheist hospitals?” they tauntingly ask. “We don’t see any atheist programs to help the poor and needy,” they jeer.

Seriously, I keep hearing about these people but where are they? I've been through Catholic schooling for 13 years, as well as having atheist friends from outside of this schooling, and haven't heard any of this.

Then there is the history of Christianity in the West. As recently as a few hundred years ago, it was dangerous, if not fatal, to so much as openly doubt Christian theological doctrines.

As recently as a few hundred years ago, the entire world believed the earth was flat. What does this have to do with anything in a modern context?
Chewbacca defense?

 

[bazookajoe]

This article doesn't show why we need religion, it is a defense of religious people as being with moral character.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.
The article is pretty stupid, for some reason it reminds me of Bart's People, but the opposite

 

[lengy]

:care:

 

[ur_inner_child]

:care:

Really? No value in religion what-so-ever?

For someone who embraces their atheism so intensely, your "non-caring" is confusing.