Forced to be Christian

[mpjh]

The current Pope does not support Liberation Theology.

[CrazyAnglican]

That's great, but the history is there isn't it? It also does little to nullify the good that other Christians both layity, clergy, and whole organizations do worldwide.

[mpjh]

No, crazy, the point is that religions don't support the liberation of the poor, rather they need to poor to continue their existence. If religions truly supported the liberation of the poor they would not own churches or other property, they would not be building or sustaining large cathedrals, they would be putting all their resources into the goal of empowering the poor to take care of themselves. Right now most organized religions support the ruling elite of the country they are in at the expense of the disempowered.

[Backglass]

I wonder how I could learn more about the forced conversions. For example, what is a forced conversion?

Is there even such a thing as a forced conversion?

Even I would "convert" to Scientology and pray to Xenu if they held a gun to my wife & kids head...but that doesn't mean I believe a word of it or truly have "converted".

[PLAYER57832]

Basic solution to stopping the atrocities of the past is to have the powerless take power and maintain power with true democracy. When you combine power with the autocratic approach of "god told me to do it," you have atrocities.

Except that great atrocities are often committed when the formerly powerless gain power .. and promptly use it to exact revenge. Even when not direct, the oppressed often turn around and become as bad or worse than their oppressors.

[PLAYER57832]

No, crazy, the point is that religions don't support the liberation of the poor, rather they need to poor to continue their existence. If religions truly supported the liberation of the poor they would not own churches or other property, they would not be building or sustaining large cathedrals, they would be putting all their resources into the goal of empowering the poor to take care of themselves. Right now most organized religions support the ruling elite of the country they are in at the expense of the disempowered.

You are confusing religion and faith with people who are in churches .. and most specifically, I believe, the Roman Catholic Church (though they certainl have no lock on this ... look at the "Crystal Cathedral" for an example).

Also, again, the fact that powerful people use and even work within the church is a reflection of humanities' failings and imperfections, not of the church/religion itself. It would be nice if faith made people perfect, but it doesn't.

[PLAYER57832]

Give an example from the 20th century, then. I've already cited a fantastic resource that contains other links as well. Where is this "God told us so" that has Christians marching off. George Bush's thoughts on the subject notwithstanding, The Iraqi conflicts aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the bloodbath caused by philosophies gone awry. Not that religion gone awry is no cause for concern, but that it does not stand out as any moreso than philosophy, as Snorri claimed. Do you agree with snorri or with the actual data?

and, even with Bush, most people are not marching off because he said God told him to do it. In fact, the percentage of even the faithful going to war who actually believe that happened is fairly small.

[mpjh]

Revenge isn't a democratic imperative and not a necessary result of revolution.

[PLAYER57832]

Revenge isn't a democratic imperative and not a necessary result of revolution.

No, but it is an unfortunate part of human nature. And, it is what has happened historically in many, many cases.

[mpjh]

True, but it is still not an imperative of a democratic government, primarily because it is not in the self interest of the people to conduct revenge. I think the most compelling example of an exhibition of this is South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

[CrazyAnglican]

No, crazy, the point is that religions don't support the liberation of the poor, rather they need to poor to continue their existence. If religions truly supported the liberation of the poor they would not own churches or other property, they would not be building or sustaining large cathedrals, they would be putting all their resources into the goal of empowering the poor to take care of themselves. Right now most organized religions support the ruling elite of the country they are in at the expense of the disempowered.

So you're telling me that in all that evidence that I cited about a movement that clearly got started by church organizations, you still maintain that religions want to keep the poor powerless? Fascinating, you have proof of this do you?

True, but it is still not an imperative of a democratic government, primarily because it is not in the self interest of the people to conduct revenge. I think the most compelling example of an exhibition of this is South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I absolutely agree. I'm glad that you're coming around to seeing the positive influence religious figures can have in society. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Desmond Mpilo Tutu (born 7 October 1931) is a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. In 1984, Tutu became the second South African to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Tutu was elected and ordained the first black South African Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (now the Anglican Church of Southern Africa). Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is currently the chairman of The Elders. Tutu is vocal in his defence of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. Tutu also campaigns to fight AIDS, poverty and racism. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and the Gandhi Peace Prize in 2005.[1] Tutu has also compiled several books of his speeches and sayings.

[JCKing]

If I may say so myself from the first post here. Jews are not Christians they believe the same thing for the most part but 1 major difference. Jewish people should not be classified as Christians as Christians have a different belief. This is my only post on this forum so... I mean really if any have questions just pm me.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi JCKing,

I don't think anyone was equating Christians and Jews in terms of belief. The charge (yet again ) was how terrible Christians can be if you let them have any actual say in what's going on in the world. Let's keep quiet about it, mind you, if any other groups can be as terrible or even moreso.

[FabledIntegral]

Hi JCKing,

I don't think anyone was equating Christians and Jews in terms of belief. The charge (yet again ) was how terrible Christians can be if you let them have any actual say in what's going on in the world. Let's keep quiet about it, mind you, if any other groups can be as terrible or even moreso.

It's more so, from what I gather, that the charge is what a powerful instrument Christianity can be when misguided (according to you at least - to them it's for the correct cause) and how zealous people can be when they believe they are doing the "right," thing. Through manipulating it to however you see fit, you can gain a following of virtually mindless souls willing to do whatever asked because they believe they are serving God.

Secularism typically doesn't garner such followings, rather it's people that are being oppressed and would rise against the ruler if possible. Although, I must admit, I'm not sure the distinction between the two matters - atrocities are atrocities...

[CrazyAnglican]

Through manipulating it to however you see fit, you can gain a following of virtually mindless souls willing to do whatever asked because they believe they are serving God.

Here's the rub. What makes a Christian who believes he's doing the right thing more of a "mindless soul" than a communist (which is certainly secular) or a fascist. You're swaying into the realm of ad-hominem, why must we assume that a person belonging to a religion is "mindless" in support of any particular aim. What specific faculty do you assume they lack that everyone else seemingly has?

Secularism typically doesn't garner such followings,.....

Sure it does. The Stalinist atrocities of the WWII era and a little after were completely secular. Do you suppose that he concocted and carried out these atrocities by himself? I'd say that it's hardly likely. Some, probably many, Communists had to be willing to go along with the brutality in the name of a new and better world order, or it simply could not have happened. The same could be said for Pol Pot, Kim il Jung, Mao Zedong, etc. There is so much evidence that secularism garners such followings that it would be impossible to cite it all.

rather it's people that are being oppressed and would rise against the ruler if possible. Although, I must admit, I'm not sure the distinction between the two matters - atrocities are atrocities...

In the, above mentioned, example it was the oppressed people being ground into the dust by the adherents to the ideology that "if we all work together and be equals the world would be a much better place". Philosophies do garner wide popular support any go every bit as (arguably, more) awry as any religion ever has.

[FabledIntegral]

Through manipulating it to however you see fit, you can gain a following of virtually mindless souls willing to do whatever asked because they believe they are serving God.

Here's the rub. What makes a Christian who believes he's doing the right thing more of a "mindless soul" than a communist (which is certainly secular) or a fascist. You're swaying into the realm of ad-hominem, why must we assume that a person belonging to a religion is "mindless" in support of any particular aim. What specific faculty do you assume they lack that everyone else seemingly has?

Nothing - they could all be mindless souls. Nationalism I would say is the second most driving force for "mindless souls," immediately after religion. It's all relative to the amount of "zeal" someone has for a particular belief. I did not mean in any way to downplay religion itself - rather the people who follow such movements.

Secularism typically doesn't garner such followings,.....

Sure it does. The Stalinist atrocities of the WWII era and a little after were completely secular. Do you suppose that he concocted and carried out these atrocities by himself? I'd say that it's hardly likely. Some, probably many, Communists had to be willing to go along with the brutality in the name of a new and better world order, or it simply could not have happened. The same could be said for Pol Pot, Kim il Jung, Mao Zedong, etc. There is so much evidence that secularism garners such followings that it would be impossible to cite it all.
[/quote]

After Stalin took power - his followings were more out of fear than out of any particular zeal. Sure - it existed, but it was more so due to people knowing they would die themselves if they didn't follow his order. Don't get me wrong, he had his supporters and people were VERY nationalistic for the USSR as a country, but the policies he enacted in order to commit the atrocities were far less accepted.

rather it's people that are being oppressed and would rise against the ruler if possible. Although, I must admit, I'm not sure the distinction between the two matters - atrocities are atrocities...

In the, above mentioned, example it was the oppressed people being ground into the dust by the adherents to the ideology that "if we all work together and be equals the world would be a much better place". Philosophies do garner wide popular support any go every bit as (arguably, more) awry as any religion ever has.[/quote]

Which above mentioned example..?

Either way, I more so was correcting your interpretation of what the "charges" were rather than saying what I believed in myself. Hence me saying "from what I can gather, THESE are the charges the others are saying..." I wasn't trying to really support it nor defend it, I just believe you answered to JC in a quite a manipulated twist of what they were saying in order to make their argument seem less viable.

[CrazyAnglican]

Through manipulating it to however you see fit, you can gain a following of virtually mindless souls willing to do whatever asked because they believe they are serving God.

Here's the rub. What makes a Christian who believes he's doing the right thing more of a "mindless soul" than a communist (which is certainly secular) or a fascist. You're swaying into the realm of ad-hominem, why must we assume that a person belonging to a religion is "mindless" in support of any particular aim. What specific faculty do you assume they lack that everyone else seemingly has?

Nothing - they could all be mindless souls. Nationalism I would say is the second most driving force for "mindless souls," immediately after religion. It's all relative to the amount of "zeal" someone has for a particular belief. I did not mean in any way to downplay religion itself - rather the people who follow such movements.

Taking a look at the numbers would refute the idea that religion is the most driving force. Nationalism tops out religion in the 20th Century easily. WWI, WWII, and the resultant conflicts in the Cold War alone saw millions upon millions die from in the militaries of various nation states alone. The civilian casualties added to that overshadow anything the world has ever seen. I there is a specifically religious cause that has racked up a similar body count I'd certainly like a link to study the particulars. Otherwise it's obvious that secular governments are no more trustworthy than any other. I don't knock the idea of secular government or even patriotism; I merely see them for what they are. You are far more likely to be asked to march off to war by your country than by your church.

Secularism typically doesn't garner such followings,.....

Sure it does. The Stalinist atrocities of the WWII era and a little after were completely secular. Do you suppose that he concocted and carried out these atrocities by himself? I'd say that it's hardly likely. Some, probably many, Communists had to be willing to go along with the brutality in the name of a new and better world order, or it simply could not have happened. The same could be said for Pol Pot, Kim il Jung, Mao Zedong, etc. There is so much evidence that secularism garners such followings that it would be impossible to cite it all.

After Stalin took power - his followings were more out of fear than out of any particular zeal. Sure - it existed, but it was more so due to people knowing they would die themselves if they didn't follow his order. Don't get me wrong, he had his supporters and people were VERY nationalistic for the USSR as a country, but the policies he enacted in order to commit the atrocities were far less accepted.

Fear absolves? I disagree, but regardless if we turn back the clock to 1917 there is a much different scenario with regard to popular zeal, but the resulant bloodshed was only slightly less hideous. Among the Russians in the Soviet era the bloodshed had two peaks that saw literally milions die horribly.

rather it's people that are being oppressed and would rise against the ruler if possible. Although, I must admit, I'm not sure the distinction between the two matters - atrocities are atrocities...

In the, above mentioned, example it was the oppressed people being ground into the dust by the adherents to the ideology that "if we all work together and be equals the world would be a much better place". Philosophies do garner wide popular support any go every bit as (arguably, more) awry as any religion ever has.

Which above mentioned example..?

The Soviets initially, but the others are equally secular.

Either way, I more so was correcting your interpretation of what the "charges" were rather than saying what I believed in myself. Hence me saying "from what I can gather, THESE are the charges the others are saying..." I wasn't trying to really support it nor defend it, I just believe you answered to JC in a quite a manipulated twist of what they were saying in order to make their argument seem less viable.

I certainly admit to being flippant, but with good reason and definiltely not in an attempt to twist anything. When folks are repeatedly shown evidence that many secular governments have at an least (if not more) bloody history than any religion, and still go on about centuries old "atrocities" that may or may not have occured on a scale large enough to affect any one it shows evidence of a different agenda. Despite evidence to the contrary the unsubstantiated claims go on and the evidence to the contrary is routinely ignored or downplayed as if any atrocity is only fit for discussion if it reflects poorly on religious organizations. What is the harm in taking a broader view of atrocities and seeing them for what they are? No large group of humans is innocent with regard ot atrocities committed in the past century alone. The twist comes when one only decides to cite the bad in one organization; attempt through omission to make it seem as if it's unique to them; and then deny any good that has come from them. That's pure propaganda.

[PLAYER57832]

What is the harm in taking a broader view of atrocity and seeing it for what it is?

Actually, there is a GREAT DEAL of harm in claims that only this group or that group, this type of group or that type of group are capable of the greatest atrocities. It is harmful, because it is how the speaker sets him/herself apart from those others .. who ARE capable.

We are all, as a group, capable of atrocities, UNLESS each and everyone one of us works hard to not just understand, but also to say "stop" ... beyond this line we cannot pass, when we see things beginning.

And that, is the greatest lesson we ALL must learn from history!

[CrazyAnglican]

What is the harm in taking a broader view of atrocity and seeing it for what it is?

Actually, there is a GREAT DEAL of harm in claims that only this group or that group, this type of group or that type of group are capable of the greatest atrocities. It is harmful, because it is how the speaker sets him/herself apart from those others .. who ARE capable.

We are all, as a group, capable of atrocities, UNLESS each and everyone one of us works hard to not just understand, but also to say "stop" ... beyond this line we cannot pass, when we see things beginning.

And that, is the greatest lesson we ALL must learn from history!

Absolutely, and that was certainly what I was saying. Every group is capable of atrocities. To dwell on those of the past from one particular group to the exclusion of others, even when they are brought up as evidence of a wider human failing, is to effectively stick one's head in the sand hoping that "if we can just get rid of X we'd be safe". In fact "If we could just get rid of X..." is how these atrocities start in the first place. Therefore I am standing up and saying beyond this line we cannot pass. Scapegoating is dangerous no matter how well intentioned.

[mpjh]

The best way to prevent atrocities is to empower those without power, in short, a revolution that eliminates the absurd dominance of the elite in this world. Unfortunately, most church leaders strive to be part of the elite, or at least it apologists.

[CrazyAnglican]

The best way to prevent atrocities is to empower those without power, in short, a revolution that eliminates the absurd dominance of the elite in this world.

More idealistic banter that doesn't always stand up to scrutiny. You've just cited something remarkably similar to this little party as a way to prevent atrocity.

The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred fifteen months after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution." Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 20,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate. The guillotine ("National Razor") became the symbol of a string of executions: Marie-Antoinette, the Girondins Philippe Égalité and Madame Roland, as well as many others, such as "the father of modern chemistry" Antoine Lavoisier, lost their lives under its blade.

[mpjh]

Not so idealistic. It has begun in South Africa, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, and Peru just to mention a few places.

[CrazyAnglican]

Yes, and if we don't believe you we can "google it". I've googled a lot of your sources and they don't seem to say what you'd like them to.

[mpjh]

Well, some are better gogglers than others. It is a skill, and the more you do it the better you get.

[muy_thaiguy]

The best way to prevent atrocities is to empower those without power, in short, a revolution that eliminates the absurd dominance of the elite in this world. Unfortunately, most church leaders strive to be part of the elite, or at least it apologists.

Oh, you mean like the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Or like the Communist Takeover in China in the late 1940s? Or like the Reign of Terror in France after the Royal Family was guillotined? Each of these, along with many others in the last 100 years alone fit this little "best way to prevent atrocities" idea of yours, yet in turn, each and every one of these has racked up the body count just as much, if not more so then the "old absurdly powerful elite" did before them.
Religious groups and churches in these areas had to go underground for years, decades even until pressure from the outside world made them let up on religious groups, or the "new" powers just crumbled. China for instance has around 20 million Catholics alone, but even so, just a couple decades ago, if one wasn't openly Atheist, then they were either kept under 24/7 surveillance, sent out into slave labor, or disappeared altogether. Come to think of it, many secular governments that had this revolution were similar, if not the same as China was.
Look, religion by itself has done more good in the last 100 years then secular government has in the last 200. Yes yes, people who claimed to be Christian 500 years ago or 700 years ago did some pretty bad things, but to say that giving people a chance to live rather then just shooting them sounds a step above what secular governments have done in recent times. Yet you and others, it seems, turn a blind eye to that and still try to insist that things from centuries ago, where policies, thoughts, morals, and ethics were far different from what they are now, hold merit to things that people who are still alive remember and had to live through. You brush that aside and only see it as "the man getting what he deserved."