This problem, like many problems in the world are often examined only a few layers deep. The conclusions are always the same: Poverty/Slavery are the consequence of corruption, or an evil dictator of some kind.
While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground.
Toyota made the fatal mistake of making a faulty floor mat which, only caused a handful of deaths. In that, Toyota fired a fleet of people, re-evaluated their whole process while battling media and governments for months. We burned Toyota at the stake for a handful of deaths, but we pay no mind to the religious implications of our world's enormous head counts all tied to religion. We let millions of innocents die because, what? It makes us feel all fuzzy inside to say others benefit from religion? Really? Why doesn't that rule apply to any other regime or group of followers? And when is it ever a good thing for many people to forfeit critical thinking in place of a template?
Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants.
If we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious.
It's true that the correlation is weak, but the reluctance to actually do the studies is due to the implications of them.
Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular. This wishy-washy approach to making sense out of violence is why it exists at all. If it's not true that atheism promotes less violence, then let's see why countries with higher atheism are less violent, shouldn't we? I'm all for making an argument concrete.
> Atheists are, by nature, less violent. Not because they are somehow enlightened, but because there is at least one major grievance removed from the equation. Atheists don't tend to burn down other buildings because they are different, or ravage an entire community because they aren't secular.
Replace atheists with "people that think independly", and I could agree.
As it is I cannot. One counterexample - most of the people in the Red Army were atheists. That did not changed the fact, that significant part of red army pillaged and raped what they could on their way to Berlin (including civilians and nations they were supposedly "freeing" of Germans).
Not beliving in gods don't make you automaticaly less violent. Both nazi Germany and communist Russia were more or less atheists. They instead developed new rituals and mythology to serve the same purpose. Gods are not needed to make people kill people.
Right, I am always skeptical of simple answers to problems when humans are involved. I like simplicity and elegance in solutions, but if there is one thing that I have realized in life is generally when humans become a variable in the equation, simplicity goes right out the window.
I really don't think simple solution like abolish religion are the answer when dealing with the complexities of human nature. I think a scientifically valid test for identifying psychopathy would do far more for ridding the world of inequality than abolishing religion and personally, I think even that would maybe fix 1% of the issues, the reality is it is layers and layers or personal, cultural and societal behaviors, cultures and norms that together build systems of inequality. Generally simple solutions like get rid of those guys are just schemes concocted by another psychopath trying to control one group against another. You can count me out of any solution that requires alienation or elimination of a group of people based on a common identity, because that only shift the equality onto another group and it opens up a dark, dark door.
> Right, I am always skeptical of simple answers to problems when humans are involved. I like simplicity and elegance in solutions, but if there is one thing that I have realized in life is generally when humans become a variable in the equation, simplicity goes right out the window.
Can't argue with that.
> You can count me out of any solution that requires alienation or elimination of a group of people based on a common identity
Hate groups would probably agree with you since they generally have a hard time seeking support. Even though they are a group based on a common identity.
Damn, there goes that argument. Forgot about that. There was a time when people were trying to abolish slavery. Trying to highlight how – if you take a deeper look – you can see how it harmed others. And that that matters.
Put slavery in a chocolate coating, put a shiny wrapper on it and all of a sudden, we don't have a problem! As long as we don't have to look at it. And as long as it makes people feel better about themselves.
You don't need to ban religion or burn bibles. You just need to have an adult conversation about what religion's implications are, denounce it and see it for the foolishness that it is.
Ditto. Being agnostic in the truest sense (I don't believe the existence of god is provable or disprovable and as such find it an irrelevance in my life and less relevant than debating philosophical what ifs like "is a glass half-full or half-empty") I am actually scared by the fervour in the "atheists". They're building religious tension between the religious and the anti-religious.
The atheistic community is developing a hubris and don't realise that by creating such a polarised ideal they themselves are becoming a religious problem.
I don't defend religions, I think they've long been the root cause of most of the strife in the world. I don't think atheism in its current popularised form is little more than replacing one dictator with another. Our society, our world doesn't need another religion or an anti-religion to follow, we simply need to stop FOLLOWING.
I've said this again and again here, and I always get down-voted to oblivion for not following the atheist masses. Or I get called an atheist for not believing in 'god' despite believing the mere thought is irrelevant and an unnecessary waste of intellect.
All the wrongs in the world have been committed by people who wilfully neglect to think about the consequences of their actions. How they do this varies, by demeaning women and calling them second class citizens. Or by calling Blacks and other non-white ethnicities sub-human or some other variants to justify using or abusing them.
Bad people do bad things. Good people, no matter what will do the good/right thing. The true evil in this world is the normal person who will blindly look away so long as they believe they won't be harmed or involved.
More dancing around the subject. As I said before, you're for large groups of people thinking together without critical thinking...or you're not. It's that simple. If you're for it, check the "socially acceptable" bullshit at the door and be prepared to see your argument through.
I agree that atheism has become somewhat of a religion, which is also a very bad thing. No disagreement there.
Noticing some of my comments are being down-voted. No problem with opposing opinion or criticism, but when there is a void of space under my comment where your rebuttal should be and my comment was down-voted, I have to think that you just don't like what I am saying.
As I see it, if I've said something inflammatory or if I refuse to debate further beyond talking points, I should accept the fate of the down-vote. I've responded to and debated my points, without name calling, or other negative behaviour.
Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills is so patently silly that people see no reason to refute you in words.
You did say the "sword that is wielded" so I guess you have some realization that it's not the cause, only the effect - but then the rest of your post (and your other ones) go on to try to claim that religion is the cause.
You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by (i.e. the things you find OK vs not OK) just by living where you do (things like corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment for economic crimes) is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion.
So calling out religion for giving people a template (as you call it) demonstrates a lack of understanding of both religion and your own thinking - I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
> Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills
OK. Your claim is my argument sweeps wholesale opinion, but then you make a wholesale opinion of what I meant when I said X. All of the worlds ills? No. Any specific issue? No. A major contributor? Absolutely. I didn't say that a religious-free world would be a slavery-free one. I am saying there would be less slavery overall. Not sure how that could be argued without removing parts of the story.
> You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by...
Another assumption.
> is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion.
You're taking ideals like 'capital punishment' and casting them into a 'religious ideal' for the purpose of comparing them directly. Pretty sure debt slavery, corporal punishment and capital punishment are variable dependant on the state of what you might consider a low wage, or how wrong it is to trade stocks with privileged information. We alter these ideals based on new information. Religion doesn't do this. The book that tells people to behead unbelievers today is the same book from hundreds of years ago. Religion is unyielding and doesn't evolve. Especially the kind that enslaves people. It's pretty absurd for you to suggest religion is as much of a variant as corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment - regardless of distance.
> I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned,
Assumption.
> and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
Except if new information is presented that is different than what I believe, I don't ignore it or stick my head in the sand hoping for the 'armageddon/rapture/other ridiculous event' to come to take me away. Facilitating ignorance isn't a strong point.
I didn't vote you down but it you want a critique, I'll oblige.
First, you start off with a promising statement about the correlation between slavery and dictatorship. Unfortunately, your following paragraphs have almost nothing to do with it. You quickly delve into a anti-religion rant which uses a poor metaphor involving Toyota.
I got your point in the end but I'm probably one of the few that made it that far. It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote. Although I cannot down vote (not enough karma), I don't think I'd up vote you either.
> First, you start off with a promising statement about the correlation between slavery and dictatorship. Unfortunately, your following paragraphs have almost nothing to do with it. You quickly delve into a anti-religion rant which uses a poor metaphor involving Toyota.
If this was a review for a movie, you nailed it. Metaphor definitely not my best. It was an anti-religious rant. Thank you for noting that. Hopefully you'll dive into more detail as to why you feel differently?
> It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote.
> Hopefully you'll dive into more detail as to why you feel differently?
You didn't ask for why I felt different (to be honest, I don't necessarily), you asked for why you were getting down voted. While sometimes you get down voted for an unpopular view (which I don't think is fair as long as your view makes sense), I felt that you might've been down voted for the lack of clarity in your post.
Then I get down voted for an honest response. Lovely. Sometimes I don't know why I even bother with HN because the karma system is quite a bit of fail. It appears that the early adopters can down vote to their hearts content but those of us who haven't been around as long can only up vote. I would love to know the karma level needed to up vote but that is not anywhere that I have looked (faq, guidelines, etc.).
>> It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote.
> Nope. Guess not.
I wouldn't be so smug, what you said still might not be good, it just could be the best comment out of a really poor batch. :)
The problem with HN is this. The sport of 1-uping each other to prove something. It's not a matter of being smug, at least not from my perspective. My point is - you either are against group/mob/religion thinking or you're not. If you're for these types of groups be prepared to see your theory through past warm, fuzzy feelings for us westerners. If that wasn't clear, my apologies. But I'm not bowing out because the politically correct view makes me more popular. The politically correct view should be against tolerance of violence through not-so-obvious roots. Instead, we have those who are dancing around the subject rather than addressing it directly.
Isn't it funny that when you come up with a counter argument against violence you end up back at my original point about religion being a force of violence?
>While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground.
Communist Russia, anyone?
I think that to stamp out people's exploitation of each other, we must unite, not divide. Religion is as much about culture as it is about power. Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places. It's almost funny how being against something usually makes people repeat that very thing themselves.
One can argue that USSR had state religion of Marxism-Leninism, quite strictly enforced.
It was complete with prophets like Stalin, saints and martyrs like that boy that denounced his parents (I forgot his name), or stachan-workers, mythology, holidays, rituals, etc.
Not that I think religion is the source of all evil. It's just the source of power, and power correlates with evil.
The binary argument of Russia is an old one. Tried and true, but completely
removed from a full understanding of what makes people violent. Russia and
atheism are orthogonal relationships at best.
> Suddenly telling people that their culture is no longer accepted and that they should convert or get the fk out is exactly what Christianity did in a lot of places.
Allowing people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions stomps
out ones abilities to use that belief as a way to herd people into a specific
direction. That's it. No one needs to uproot their culture or how they go about
their lives. These ideologies start with an indoctrination that carries people to
their own demise without evaluation. That's what needs to stop.
I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement.
"Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that?
I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass.
Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS
and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are
the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief
or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without
evaluation or due diligence.
> Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same
The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective.
> There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.
I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and
the implications of it from the very foundation.
> Can you please source that?
Atheist nations are more peaceful [1]
Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2]
Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3]
Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4]
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass.
Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong"
> crucial in the abolishment
Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church'
> Sources
Thank you.
I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article:
1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism
2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'.
Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism"
Norway - Norse Paganism
Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim
Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated
Brits - is there a question here?
3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion.
4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'
Also the first two are nations that are culturally and ethnically pretty homogeneous which would partially explain why there is little strife. If everyone subscribes to the same belief system and are ethnically similar then they are more like one big group as opposed to what we have in other countries where there is tension between groups.
In a comment above, I mentioned the nature of these references at being weak at best. There is an inherit problem with sourcing this kind of data and/or being the "front man" for it for obvious reasons.
The very nature of having a large group of people thinking the same way, executing their lives in a way pre-determined is a very bad thing. You can label it however you wish. An atheist is basically someone who has identified what they are not. When you talk about "pretty non-religious", you're talking about unlabelled or not completely adherent atheism. That's still a great thing. Nothing wrong with believing in some thing as long as someone else didn't tell you to.
The argument "It's good that a large group of people believe in a single ideology and adhere their life to it" will never have wings among intellectuals. Now, if you take that argument and apply it, you won't go far down the road when you'll invariably have to talk about religion. Do you excuse it? Or accept that it is one of those groups?
No disagreement here. Religion inherently forces an idea on a person. However, when a person determines the course of their life, which happens to align to a particular religion, it must be accepted whether by intellectual or not.
The problem with this conversation is that it dips in and out of respect of ones beliefs – which is a tricky platform to walk. If I say "No, people should throw away religious ideology", I will be called all sorts of names. If I say "I think X people should be enslaved", I will also be called all sorts of names.
Why is this true? Because with religion, there are several degrees of information you must process to get to a point where you see the correlation of religion and enslavement. Saying "X people should be enslaved" is only 1 degree. Why is it okay to tolerate something because it is more for our brain to evaluate? Why does it matter how many steps there are to the same result, or other negative result? It doesn't matter. If the end point meets slavery, brutality or death it is as/more severe than the act itself.
This report shows us a terribly broken culture. It may have had foundations in religion, but that was so long ago that even if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue. The only way to fix broken cultural aspects is through education, which is what the abolitionists in this report seem to be doing. Maybe it shows my ignorance, but if not for this report I would have never known about this problem, now that I do, I'd love to find ways to help.
Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball, which is fixing the problems there. It also seems like creating a convenient straw man for atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion...
> atheism, which if the constant preaching of is any indication, seems to be turning into quite the religion...
I've actually noted this. The whole "Bless You" debate squares that point.
My point is more about critical thinking and how religion takes that away
from people. Is anyone in argument that it is a bad thing for large groups
of people to think the same way without due diligence? Pretty sure most
people see large groups thinking as one as a bad thing. You can call it atheism,
or what have you, but essentially we're talking about freedom of critical
thinking vs. freedom of religion. I don't care for religion, or people
thinking in large groups as one, so I lean towards people's right to think
critically.
> Pinning the blame for Mauritania's slavery problem on "religion" takes the eye off the ball
Let's ask: Why is there slavery in Mauritania? What would make people
okay with their own enslavement? No education about what slavery is?
Sure. Let's say it's to do with education. Now, who's putting a stop
to education? Whoops. Here's to taking the eye off the ball, esoteric
style. I tire of hearing how people will solve the world's ball of fire
that is enslavement, brutality, ignorance by throwing a pail of water
over it when the real problem is the factory making the lighter fluid.
if we could magically wipe away all trace of religion or God from the minds of every Mauritanian, the problem would continue.
One only has to ask which came first the desire to control others or the religion that justified it, I believe the answer is self evident and if it is, then religions that control are merely a symptom of human nature and abolishing them will not cure the foundry cause which is the desire.
> abolishing them will not cure the foundry cause which is the desire.
No, but it makes it harder to execute when everyone thinks for themselves. If everyone was educated to think critically rather than handing over part of their brain's processing power to a mob, controlling populations would be harder. Much, much harder.
The part you're missing (and what I think kls is getting at) is that groupthink is not exclusive to religion. A group of people will gravitate towards each other and stop critically thinking. It sucks, but it's human nature.
Atheists are just as capable of groupthink as any other group (conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, capitalists). And just as religion has been used, and still continues to be used, to justify some truly horrible things; the militant desire for the elimination of religion can be just as bad. Sitting around pointing fingers at a very large and varied group of philosophies doesn't really do any good...
In the parent post you mention we burned Toyota at the stake for a faulty floor mat, and then in the same sentence say "we pay no mind to the religious implications of our world's enormous head counts all tied to religion." What do you propose? We burn those religious at the stake? Because your groupthink of atheism makes you feel superior (saved)? Because critical thinking is king, and those that you deem unable to do so are inferior (not saved)?
I propose we declare religion a fallacy and declare that it provides no value to a population. You don't need to hurt people to eliminate ignorance.
My problem is with the group think mentality. Religion just happens to be a larger manifestation of group think, but more so a way for people to orchestrate their desires in the guise of being from the word of god making any argument (like this one) absolutely unacceptable if it questions that authority. That's why religion stands out - because it has the power to control people in mass without much resistance. Help me understand why this is good for society. As such, I've only seen people dance around why it is good that religion is velcro-ed to our behavior. Help me see why a large group of people forfeiting their critical thinking in place of a bunch of mythological fallacies as A Good Thing.
You seem to imply that holding philosophical beliefs about our purpose somehow is an indicator of intelligence or lack of and of ones ability to logically analyze the subject. Spiritual beliefs or the lack of are not an indicator of ones ability to critically think. There are many religious people that have weighed the evidence and feel that it falls on the side of creation and do so based on the best evidence available. At a certain point we are left with only philosophy and one must use philosophical reasoning to help them rationalize the world. While we have made a lot of advancements in science there is still a lot that we do not know, if I may I would like to suggest you watch the following series called the Boundaries of the Knowable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF54xqYhIGA it is a very good series that highlights the depth of how much we don't know and shows the importance that philosophical viewpoints are even today in reasoning and even scientific reasoning. In my opinion religious people have strong cases for an architect in their arguments that the universe is fined tuned, as the multiverse is basically the same argument but structured for a naturalist viewpoint, but both side make the argument for a supernatural entity that created this universe, both are equally untestable and unscientific, but those that hold a theist view have the corollary evidence of fine tuning so from a purely rational and critical thinking view point, based on all known evidence the argument for intelligence creating the universe seems to have the edge. My intention is not to get into a theological debate, or to support creation for that matter, but rather to highlight that one can very easily use rational thought processes to critically analyze the situation and come to the conclusion that there is a creator and have a totally logical thought process in doing so.
Conversely just as with religion, there are many atheist that blindly follow their dogma. I have several relatives that fall into this category, so I am very familiar with the type. For lifestyle reasons such as partying, drinking and a highly active sex life they rejected religious based moral codes as it conflicted with their desires, they then went on to find a dogma that helped justify their choice. On any occasion available they parrot what the thinkers of their particular dogma say and use it as justification for their choice. They never critically analyzed their choice of dogma it just aligned with their world view. As such they are the same as a non-rational religious person just the opposite side of the coin. They are displaying the very same human traits and tendencies, finding something that aligns with their desires and using it for justification of their world view.
Finally, once again I would like to state my intention is not to support religion or atheism, but rather to play devils advocate in hopes of helping others see that the issue is complex human nature, we need to find out how to fix our nature as it is the root cause, blaming religion or atheism or socialism or capitalism, diverts focus from the real issue and that is we need to align incentives and identity with productive efforts as opposed to the age old cure all of branding some other group as the cause of all our ills and dehumanizing them by insinuating they are less intelligent or less human for whatever reason.
> You seem to imply that holding philosophical beliefs about our purpose somehow is an indicator of intelligence or lack of and of ones ability to logically analyze the subject.
I don't know if I implied it, but yes – if what you believe in is false and can be easily tested and verified to be false and still manage to sink belief in it, and profess others to do the same or "you'll go to hell", otherwise – you're not intelligent.
To use a poor analogy: In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (original one, not the shit one from a few years ago), a dude named Mike TV is teleported from one TV to another. During this process Mike is scrambled up into tiny little squares and carried to the other side of the room where the tiny squares are put back together. Magic. Now, since I don't understand how analog/radio signals work, I could just take this as my way of explaining it. It's much easier than talking about radio waves and all of that techy stuff. The trouble is, no one would ever allow me to disseminate this garbage theory to anyone. People will tell me I was misleading people and lying to them. Turns out, misleading people is bad.
So in trying to explain the world around us, why should I be okay with a ideology with so many holes? Talking snakes? Really? Before you come back (and not address the talking snakes, noah's arc, etc), try not to separate the religious theology from the religion – because religion specifically tells you not to do that, however more convenient it may make your argument.
> In my opinion religious people have strong cases for an architect in their arguments
The problem with the hyper-atheist movement is that it has told the 'other side' that they should stop thinking about how their story evolves. My arguments aren't against an architect, just that we don't know shit about the architect or that there is an architect. Pretending we do is a lie. If a god comes down and announces himself, I'll be the first believer. Until then, I'm on the fence watching bullshitters disseminate bullshit.
> For lifestyle reasons such as partying, drinking and a highly active sex life they rejected religious based moral code
No. If that's the case, Catholics should be atheist because they are easily the highlight of debauchery-related news. There is definitely a sense of freedom where you can dictate your own path. Whether that leads to drinking, or drugs is moot. Oppression also causes poor behaviour, let's not forget.
> I would like to state my intention is not to support religion or atheism, but rather to play devils advocate in hopes of helping others..
Nope. You're religious. You come to a place where the main occupation is programming; a vice that shows illogic the door unfavourably and expect to hear clamour at the idea of global misinformation dissemination. Not to mention call athiests drug, alcohol addled fiends.
To be an atheist, it means you start with a blank piece of paper and only fill in what is verifiable truth. As a religious person, the plan is to start with a fully drawn picture and struggle to grey out the more awful points. It's common for people to see atheism as a 'holier than thou' exhibition. But really, it's religious folk who start off claiming to know it all.
Nope. You're religious. You come to a place where the main occupation is programming; a vice that shows illogic the door unfavourably and expect to hear clamour at the idea of global misinformation dissemination. Not to mention call athiests drug, alcohol addled fiends.
Actually I have identified as agnostic for a long time, and I don't see where I called call atheists drug, alcohol addled fiends, rather I highlighted a personal experience with family members that identify with atheism and who chose it because it aligned with there preferences, as well as noted there particular reasons for doing so to highlight that lack of critical analysis happens on both sides of the fence. You are becoming defensive and inferring items that are not being said. To be very clear I stated that my relatives chose atheism due to it aligning with their desires not that all atheist have those desires, but in saying that some do and some don't which was the overarching point, which is while there are true thinkers in most movements there are also non critical thinkers, atheism is not impervious to that reality.
If your argument is against atheism, you'll find no resistance from me. I could care less about the atheist movement or otherwise. That's the whole premise of critical thinking - to never align yourself because of a few common ideals. Atheism is a movement. Critical thinking is a way of life. That's why religion is such a hard pill to swallow. You can't, in good conscience, be a critical thinker AND believe in talking snakes. Once you come to that realization there is really no turning back. Then you see how religion corrupts indefinitely and absolutely.
"Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants."
I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something.
Open source has turned religious in the development community. So has development languages (PHP/Ruby) or editors (VI/Emacs). The only difference is we aren't killing each other over it.
Even Global warming has gotten religious.
The problems aren't even about the religion itself. It's about a group or person gaining power over others and abusing that power. The right-wing of America uses that as a power-base to swing votes. On the other side, the left uses things like the unions to do the same thing.
Christianity, in my mind, is a guide on how to be a good human being. Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong.
"f we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious."
Which means taking away the right to be religious. I don't agree with you, sorry.
> I think religion is ingrained in humans. If all religions were gone today, people would would still be getting religious over something.
Diluting religion into a fan club of sorts is a way to get around why actual religion is bad. You can't find a path of brutality and enslavement to Ruby enthusiasts. It's not the same thing and I think that should be pretty obvious.
> Many people have bastardized this and use it to force their views onto other people through fear, which is wrong.
Because we're allowed to interpret religion. In the west, talking snakes and Noah's Arc are ridiculous notions, so we can conveniently forget about that stuff. In other countries, beheading someone for having a Facebook photo that doesn't adhere to the religious doctrine isn't just allowed - it's reinforced by Sharia Law, which in some countries is the actual law. Human mutilation is even possible in the US by way of circumcision – the act of cutting parts of a person's body without their permission. But that's okay. As long as it's - what? What can I possibly put here that makes mutilation okay? I can't.
As a person who sees positive in religion, you have a few tools in your belt to banter with. But none of those tools will ever be able to denounce the fact that thinking in large groups without evaluation is bad.
You can't find a path of brutality and enslavement to Ruby enthusiasts. It's not the same thing and I think that should be pretty obvious.
I once watch a Vikings fan beat unconscious a Tampa Bay fans with a baseball bat and put him in the hospital after a game, the melee involved probably 30 men, I almost got hit just trying to defuse the situation so that someone did not die. Development is a little different given the composition of people that identify with it, but the same dogma can rear it's head. That being said, dogma and violence can crop up in any group given the right circumstances.
I'm not sure if you're trying to prove me wrong or back me up here. You're saying a bunch of people acting as a single group of dumb terminals of a single ideology is a bad thing? I agree. And I agree that there are other forms of religion and that when a bunch of people react irrationally it is usually in a mob setting. Not sure how this is in support of religion, so I appreciate the sentiment!
I am not trying to prove you wrong or back you up, just merely adding depth to the conversation, dogma and human nature seem to be deeply intertwined and religion is but one manifestation of it. I do believe that it is only a manifestation though and the real issue is complex human nature. I think that if all religion where gone tomorrow, that the world would not be a better place. It may not be a worse place but it would not be better. You see religion is just a mirror of humanity it has produced great beauty and it has created horrendous atrocities, but that has little to do with the content of religion and everything to do with the fact that humans are involved.
> I think that if all religion where gone tomorrow, that the world would not be a better place.
Seriously? You think religions that tell people to behead unbelievers, circumcise (read: mutilation) without permission, kill animals in horrific, ritualist ways helps our world be a better place?
> but that has little to do with the content of religion and everything to do with the fact that humans are involved.
"The boss says if we don't do 1000 units by the end of the day, you're all fired"
or
"God says if you don't kill 1000 unbelievers this solstice there will be no food for 10,000 years!"
I don't know about you, but I am going to say people blindly following orders is probably a bad thing. Especially if your job is on the line. :P
I think you miss my overarching point, as someone who has read all of the books, I can assure you there is very little in them that states go kill in my name, the old testament being the exception but for the major two religions they where superseded by new covenants via either the Koran or the gospel. Christ talked about universal forgiveness and pacifism and Mohammad had very specific rules of engagement for self defense. If we bring in Buddhism to round it out then we find more pacifism.
I cover that background to reach the following point and that is it's not what is in the book, as many of the leaders pervert what the book says and many followers never read it for themselves, the pages could be blank and it would be the same result. it is the people involved that is the problem and given those peoples desire if they could not control others via religion then they would do it via politics or race or another means of dividing people and that is the core issue getting rid of religion will not have a net impact because the system and volume of those being controlled will just shift to other mechanisms. Dealing with the root cause is what we need to focus on and not the symptoms, religion is but a symptom as such fixing it will provide no cure.
> If we bring in Buddhism to round it out then we find more pacifism.
Buddhism still teaches bullshit, in the form of reincarnation. I know because I was a Buddhist for 3 years. It was the last string before I threw in the towel on religion altogether. Nevertheless, it is the absolute last religion that I could possibly take issue with. The problem is, once you say one school of thought on groupthink is okay you open the door to garbage debate like this where we float around conveniently, downplaying the end results for many. Like these and countless other people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv7VdQNC8Yc
By supporting groupthink, you support the end result. Yes. Exactly that. If you support religion and groupthink for the purpose of good, you must concede your alignment for the negative as well. Conveniently cherry picking what you support isn't proving anything other than you're completely ignorant to the writing on the wall.
I don't mean to undermine this powerful report but slavery is alive and growing across the planet. I think it's important to remember that there are higher percentages of slaves in the world now than there were back in the days the Western world considers the slave era. So, Mauritania is far from being the last stronghold. Al Jazeera and Rageh Omar produced an excellent series on modern day slavery.
Don't you mean that there are higher absolute numbers of slaves today? I have a hard time believing that there is a larger percentage of slaves today than in the roman empire. That would mean there is something like a billion slaves today.
Edit: Wikipedia says there are estimated 12-27 millions slaves today, which is a lot of people, but certainly not as high a percentage of the worlds population.
I agree with the grandparent, but I'm skeptical of the numbers quoted, too. Slavery, along with child and sex trafficking, is certainly still a huge problem, but because it happens in the shadows, most people don't know about it.
Indeed. And most slavery in the world today is extremely complicated (in order to make it less obvious that it is in fact slavery) and nasty, making the slavery discussed in this article almost seem benign by comparison: it's out in plain view, it involves black people and it takes place in a backwards country far, far away.
Much different from, say, indentured servants in Dubai, Eastern European prostitutes or illegal immigrants in Europe.
Did you actually read the article? "benign" doesn't belong in the same dictionary as the words that should be used to describe the slavery described in it.
It appears that a terrible consequence of redefining prostitution or immigration law as "slavery" is that it may lead to regarding the original, actual slavery as "benign by comparison".
I half expected it to be an article on the US prison system, or the abuse of indentured migrant workers (Dubai was the poster child for a time).
But this seems worse. It's not people who were conned, or made bad decisions but people who were born into slavery. Westerners have a big bias towards rational choice - there's an assumption that it's always worse to deprive someone of choice in the first place than to take advantage of their mistakes; without considering any of the context.
A burglar is often assumed to be worse than a con artist, even if the con artist steals far more. Sometimes we may take this assumption to an illogical extreme.
I read a book about slavery by the guy who runs "Free the Slaves". It gave 6 case studies of slavery in the modern world, and Mauritani was one of them. It was the only one which seemed remotely humane.
In all of the others - ranging from indentured servanthood (yes, still slavery) in India and Pakistan, to kidnapped children in Brazil - the people were treated as expendable. Work them til they die, then get new slaves. By contrast, the institutional slavery in Mauritania, slaves are often treated like family.
I don't think we should argue which is worse - many have given their lives for their freedom so it doesn't seem like we can decide which is more important - but I don't think how they got in their situation makes them worse. (And rereading your comments now, perhaps we actually agree on this).
A final note: many other slaves are born into slavery, certainly indentured servants often pass on their debt to their children, and similar with lower caste slaves in India. In Thailand, parents are known to sell their young girls to the sex trade, which is roughly the same.
What I'm saying is that how they got in their situation isn't as big a factor as the conditions they are in. And yes, I think we both are making very similar arguments.
A semi-slavery, in a smaller isolated situation, still exists these days in some of the Arab countries and Malaysia where households will recruit servants (maid of the house) from a country such as Indonesia and pretty much did the usual drill:
- Ask the maid to work inhumanly
- Giving no vacation or "day out with friends"
- Held hostage the passport
- Occasionally raped or violent beating (sometime by using a very hot iron...)
Given the situation that the maids are just imported "resources", the law/judge didn't seem to give much thought or care until recently where there were several of the cases became high-profiled due to international news covering them.
Please don't refer to this practice as 'semi-slavery'. It is slavery. If you are held against your will and made work, it is slavery (and is in fact defined by the UN as such, as I recall).
That part that really gets me is that the slave can't seem to even comprehend his own existence. Free him, and he'll remain a slave, since it's his mind that is enslaved, not his body.
I hope that that at least alleviates the suffering that someone with a different mindset would experience - but it makes it much harder for the people viewing it from the outside. And it also adds a huge risk of people making it worse for him physically, in the name of making things better mentally.
If it were me I would not start by freeing the slaves (they have no skills for the outside world), I would start by requiring masters to educate them (at least minimally - basic math, and reading, but not fact based education). The next step would be requiring a government mandated fixed salary per slave (let them build up some savings before having to subsist on their own). Only after that would I actually free them.
reminds me a bit about the way we're (mostly) taught life ought to go in the U.S.. go to school, work hard, get a good job (working for someone else).. get a car (now you have a car payment..now you need that job!).. start a family, get a house (now you can't even THINK about quitting that job!).. and if you come close to paying off any of your indebtedness.. BUY BIGGER!
Are we free in the U.S.? Nominally, yes. Culturally? Culturally, it seems like we're encouraged to indenture ourselves right from the get-go. The mindset is probably a lot less common on places like HN, where people are paid significantly better than median, admire the entrepreneur, and so on, but out in the rest of the world it is prevalent.
Reminds me of "we are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. Mind is your only ruler, sovereign. The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind...." Marcus Garvey, 1937
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, '''except''' as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Note what they're doing - sometimes mining oil and minerals, or being sex-slaves for other people who are involved in mining. How many of those minerals are used in the tech devices we use everyday?
Laws might exist in some countries, but there are suspicions of corruption; and some legal systems are overworked.
Really, IRIN is a remarkable source of thoroughly depressing information about all this kind of stuff. I could dump thirty URLs and summaries here, but I'll let you look at IRIN in your own time.
They do also cover good news and positive stories. The photo archives are remarkable too.
Unfortunately Mauritania isn't the last stronghold of slavery. Modern slavery exists in a number of places - including:
The Ivory Coast - cocoa farming. Child slaves are an exploited part of the labor force in cocoa production (yes, your chocolate's main ingredient, cocoa, may come from sources that employ forced labor). Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_cocoa_production
The Unites States: there are an estimated 50,000 people trafficked into/out-of the US every year. 2.8 million children live in the streets, with over 30% exposed to the sex trade in some capacity. Source: http://www.gchope.org/human-slavery-statistics.html
As a dedicated anti-trafficking advocate (check out www.stopthetraffik.org to see some of the work we do) I am used to trolling through pages of ignorant, xenophobic disheartening callousness after an article like this.
I am so encouraged by the respect and knowledge you're bringing to the debate in this forum. What a breath of fresh air. Thank you, all the posters below, for reinforcing my faith in humanity!
No, don't believe this. The world is a very complex place, and what makes for a good story is often very different from what reality is.
When American journalists write about the world, they write as if the world is America. Stories are broken down into us vs them, people become black and white, some people are assigned the label 'good' and some the label 'bad'. Everything gets americanised, even the american obsession with skin colour or racial differences works itself into every conflict that is reported on.
Whatever the real story in mauritania is, it's made of centuries and centuries of history, a land caught between the arabs and the africans, a culture that has lasted hundreds of year.
This cannot be captured in a short article on CNN that reduces it all to the archetypal american "black people enslaved by people who are not us". After reading this article, you still know nothing about Mauritania. You have no understand of the complexities of their society. All you have is this single story, this opinion piece by a single author.
Your knowledge is second hand and it's second rate. You do yourself, Mauritania and history a great disservice if you read the article and believe it. A single story should only ever be something that invites you to discover the real history of a place and people (http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_...)
When you read an article like this about Mauritania, don't read it. Realise that it's like overhearing a conversation between two strangers. You lack context, you lack understanding.
That's why you should not believe this story. It's a single story about a place you know nothing about.
While I think it's reasonable to ask reader to consider secondary sources, you have offered neither actual evidence that the article contains falsehoods or "Americanized opinions" nor alternative sources that contradict this article.
I would argue that it is an equal disservice to brush aside issues in foreign countries as being the result of "centuries and centuries of history" or cultural complexities. Based on your rationale, I should not believe anything I read about any place I am not intimately familiar with because I "lack context" about it.
Ok, that's fine if you're talking about the opinions in the article, but if want to refute the items presented as facts in the story, you need to back it up with facts yourself. Otherwise I would just as easily not believe you.
And that's the correct attitude. I don't say anything refuting the points in the article. I'm not against the article either. I'm pointing out that a single story does not describe a phenomena accurately.
But everyone is jumping on my comment as if I said that anything in the article is wrong.
But then did not proceed to do so, but instead explained how lack of context in articles generally make them difficult for people to understand. People react too fast before understanding, like most people did on my comment.
The video is better. It points out that there's a continuum. I couldn't help but think of tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Tenant farmers could be free, or bonded to the land. There was a continuum from wealthy tenants (who hired workers) to serfs to slaves. It seems that a lot of Mauritania sits all over that continuum.
Most of the problem could simply be that they don't have anywhere else to go. But it's a little spooky that their government seems to be in cahoots with the slave owning classes.
On the other hand - look what happened to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when the land owners were disenfranchised, and their farms given to cronies of the new government - the whole place fell into a famine because the new "masters" couldn't farm.
There's no surefire way (to my knowledge) to reconstruct a country which has just come out of slavery. My gut reaction would be incrementalism - find ways of punishing the worst offenders so the bad (but not terrible) land/slave owners don't feel threatened. Then slowly start moving up the chain - punish physical abuse, then ensure freedom of movement, then look at land redistribution and better political representation. At no stage should a large portion of the population (i.e. every land / slave owner) feel threatened, just a small fraction of them.
You'd make a false distinction between "landlords" and "slavers". First you go for the people who murder their slaves, and the "landlords" won't resist because they don't murder their slaves. Then you go for the ones who beat their slaves, then the ones who restrict movement, then the ones who don't pay wages ...
I see you repeating again and again and not providing any background information and facts. What's exactly your problem with the article. Have you found any errors or biased stuff? If so, please highlight it for us.
I get the strange feeling that you have a problem with the article because it shows that not only white people are able to enslave other human beings. Maybe you should have a look at the history of slavery in islam.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. If you read my comment, you'll see I'm not talking about the content of the article or saying slavery does not exist.
It's difficult to tell people "think before you decide" when the people instantly assume that I am saying something that is attacking them and immediately start aggressively defending their opinion.
I think the problem is the rabbit hole of self-delusion.
1. This is bad, and we all agree.
2. Something should be done about it.
3. Old white people (Republicrats and Democricuns) should do something about it.
4. That "something" can and may be violence, intimidation, economic sabotage, ...
5. Oversight is provided by the same people planning and execute such measures in 4.
6. Somehow, all "we" are doing is for the greater good, all "they" are doing is wrong and backwards.
7. If you disagree with 6, you hate apple pie and mom.
8. WTF ??
Actually, I do know about Mauritania. I've been there. I've seen the cities and the desert. I've travelled thousands of kilometres in the desert, slept in the desert. It is an open secret that slavery exists there on a wide scale.
And why do you assume that I am saying it does not exist? If you are widely traveled then you will understand the difference between articles and reality.
Ask yourself: is the relationship between Moulkheir Mint Yarba and her master typical of Mauritanian slavery? Or is it very atypical and unusual? Or in between?
I'll bet you have no idea. But if you knew - wouldn't that change the way you react to this reality? (Assuming it is a reality. Mike Daisey's reality sure wasn't.)
I have no idea, either, because Mauritania is a foreign country to me. I'm happy to let it remain so. I have enormous doubts that American social engineers can improve it from afar with pallets of dollars, or drone strikes, or whatever we're using these days. (We might improve our own country first, although it's admittedly harder because we can't use drone strikes...)
- Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. -
Abdel read the line again and again.
“I started to ask myself if lies were coming out of
this book,” he told us, “or if they were rather
coming out of my very own culture.”
I just read V for Vendetta, the original comic book over the weekend:
We are told to remember the idea, not the man,
because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be
killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can
still change the world.
and
Beneath this mask there is more than flesh.
Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy.
And ideas are bulletproof.
An interesting view of slavery in Mauritania, it's important to raise awareness about slavery which has a natural tendency to fly under the radar.
But the sensationalist title is misleading, old style slavery is much more prevalent than this article let the reader believe, obvious cases are dubai and sex slaves, but there are more all across the world.
And there is the new style of slavery,the kind where people are free to get minimum wage to barely pay for food and shelter or maintaining themselves in debt, the kind where freedom is about choosing between brands or channels, choosing between a limited panel of wanna be leaders all funded by the same pocket.
You throw dirt in the faces of those who have and continue to suffer through slavery by comparing it to minimum-wage workers. Slavery and Poverty and very distinct and one certainly more evil than the other.
“I only had my tears to console me,” how pathetic is this?Actually slavery has become a serious problem for the Africa.It should be just removed from Africa at any cost.
At any cost? Are you sure? What if the cost is the life of all the slaves? Do you know what happens to people with no life skills at all that are suddenly thrown into the world to take care of themself?
That is not slavery. Slavery is the absolute absence of choice and opportunity.
So-called "wage slavery" is the very poster child of "first world problems".
Oh golly gosh it sucks so much to be tied to a job you hate, doesn't it? But in the vast majority of cases that lack of perceived freedom is not an actual lack of freedom but due to choices made. Often it's due to failure to budget and save properly, failure to acquire better job skills, etc.
Get some roommates, live in the cheapest part of town, stop paying money for cable, the internet, phones, movies, restaurants, etc. You'll start saving money pretty damned quick. Then use that savings to put yourself through a trade school, or just find a different line of work where you can learn on the job and move up.
The world isn't going to hand you an out if you just sit on your ass and do the same thing over and over, you've got to make your own exit.
So according to your post, having more money = freedom ? Does it not look like what a slave to money would say to deny slavery ? Or as stated in the article: Various religions in many countries have been used to justify the continuation of slavery. "They make people believe that going to paradise depends on their submission,"
That's said, what you stated is false,it's a known fact that the abolition of old style slavery was to replace it with a new from of slavery, namely minimum wage slavery, according to a then emerging economic context.
Something along these lines: freed slaves have to find money to buy food and shelter and are offered minimum wage for jobs doing what they used to do when they were slave.
You missed the point entirely. Slavery is about an absence of freedom. So-called "wage slavery" posits that an equivalent lack of freedom exists with people who are "bound" to their job.
But that is bullshit. Wage slavery is bunk. People aren't tied to jobs they hate because they have no choices, they are tied precisely because of the choices they've made.
Choices to buy smartphones, xboxes, big screen tvs, cable and internet service, cars. Choices to eat pre-made food, take-out, or restaurant food instead of cheaper fare like beans and rice. Choices to live alone in expensive housing instead of living with roommates in a cheap neighborhood. Choices to avoid keeping to a budget, avoid saving, avoid putting in the elbow-grease to acquire more skills.
That's about money but it's also about choice. When you have savings, when you live well within your means, when you build up your skillset then the whole goddamn world opens up for you. You have your choice of numerous jobs and even different careers. And especially you find that you are able to support yourself with part-time work. Is that slavery? No, that's freedom. And it's within the grasp of virtually anyone who works a job for a "wage". No it isn't easy, it takes sacrifices. But don't imagine that your slave master is your boss, your slave master is yourself, only you have put yourself in a box financially, mentally, and job skills wise that you feel you are trapped in.
1) Does not pay you a wage for your work
2) Beats you for whatever they want to
3) Murders and often rape your children
4) Trades you for livestock
5) Offers you as gifts to their friends
6) Forces you to live under the mercy of the elements
7) Denies you the right to education
8) Brainwashes you into thinking all of the above are 'normal' and fair
...then I suggest you quit and consult a lawyer in your jursiction. Otherwise, what you describe has nothing to do with SLAVERY.
While it is true that dictatorship, blind eyes and cruelty are the embodiment of these issues, religion is the sword that is wielded. Each year the west makes more progress in what I would consider the eventual realization that religion has no place in our society. We make the mistake of relenting that religion is used for moral guidance – when nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems. Tolerance of intolerance is not the moral high ground.
Toyota made the fatal mistake of making a faulty floor mat which, only caused a handful of deaths. In that, Toyota fired a fleet of people, re-evaluated their whole process while battling media and governments for months. We burned Toyota at the stake for a handful of deaths, but we pay no mind to the religious implications of our world's enormous head counts all tied to religion. We let millions of innocents die because, what? It makes us feel all fuzzy inside to say others benefit from religion? Really? Why doesn't that rule apply to any other regime or group of followers? And when is it ever a good thing for many people to forfeit critical thinking in place of a template?
Religion on our side of the world looks rosy. If you look away from the west, you will see how religion enslaves and dilutes entire populations into believing this is what god wants.
If we want to really solve the world's problems, we must finally stamp out the tools used to cause pain for millions, and if we look to the roots, the catalyst is most obvious.