When Silence Isn't Golden- evil is evil

Cheyenne

Ms. Smarty Pantsless
Joined
Apr 18, 2000
Posts
59,553
Dennis Prager
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020318-3178505.htm


This is not an auspicious time for religion. Millions of religious Muslims celebrate their co-religionists who blow up innocent people while chanting "Allah [God] is great." Here in America, we learn of more and more Roman Catholic priests who sexually molested children though, happily, unlike in the Islamic Middle East, there is no celebration in the wider Catholic world of evil done in God's name.

All of us who believe that God-based religion is indispensable to moral progress need to condemn religion-based evil as vigorously as possible. In fact, we need to condemn it even more strongly than we condemn secular-based evil such as communism and Nazism. From a religious perspective, religious evil is the worst form of evil. While secular and religious evil do equal damage to their victims, religious evil is more destructive because it does immense damage to the only things we believe can solve the problem of evil God-based morality and moral religion.

The damage Muslim terrorists and their supporters are doing to the name of God and to religion is immense. Speaking personally, the fact that millions of people believe that God rewards those who massacre innocent men, women and children with 72 virgins in heaven, no less almost makes me want to hide my being religious (even though not Muslim) from the world. I so easily understand why many Catholic priests, according to news reports, do not want to wear their collar in public.

All religious people need to vociferously and publicly condemn those who commit evil in God's name, especially members of the faiths in whose name evil is being committed.

If American Catholic leaders do not believe many members of their great religion have been negatively affected by the sick men in collars who molested children and by the institutional silence that concealed these men, these leaders are fooling themselves. Perhaps that is why the cardinal under whose jurisdiction 80 priests are charged with molesting children has not resigned. He does not realize how important such an act would be to restoring credibility to his church.

Even more so, Muslim leaders who do not understand how terribly the name of Islam has been sullied among decent people are only inflicting more damage on their religion. That is why one can only wonder at the absence of any public Muslim demonstration against Muslim terror the best service Muslims could render their religion at this time would be to organize demonstrations and condemn Islamic terror (and not hide behind condemnations of "terror committed by all sides").

Whatever our religion, we who are religious need to acknowledge that religion does not guarantee goodness. The sobering truth is that it is quite possible to believe in God, in Allah, in Christ and do great evil. A major 18th century rabbi, the Gaon of Vilna ("genius of Vilnius"), compared the Torah, the book he believed was dictated by God, to rain. Just as rain, he explained, produces both beautiful flowers and poisonous weeds, so, too, religion can produce both beautiful and poisonous
human beings.

Because religion can be the greatest tool for goodness, it can also be the greatest tool for evil. And those who use it for evil commit the worst of sins. The second/third (depending on your enumeration) of the Ten Commandments reads, "Thou shall not take the name of God in vain, for God will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain."

This commandment prohibits much more than merely frivolously saying the word "God." What it really prohibits (and describes as essentially unforgivable) is committing evil while acting religious. Or, as the original Hebrew literally reads, "carrying" God's name in vain.

Such people have a uniquely harsh judgment awaiting them. And it is time for religious people to state this loudly and clearly. Because every day religious people stay silent about religious evil is another day that they, their religions and God Himself fall into disrepute.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Evil is evil, but I agree that evil done in God's name deserves a special punishment (from God) because the person committing the evil act knows better!
 
Last edited:
reminds me of a lesson

Cheyenne--

I remember my minister saying once, "Darkness isn't too loud, the Light is too quiet." A poor paraphrase, but I think it mirrors the author's sentiments.

There is a time to speak, and let us speak with conviction and truth. It disgusts me that we will commit evil in the name of God.

I wage my battle simply. I choose to live my life according the principles I hold true. I don't want to beat folks over the head with my beliefs neither do I believe I should be silent about injustices in this world.

I think in order to be effective, you have to ask yourself what role can you play. That commitment starts with personal actions and a willingness to be held accountable for your actions and decisions. I preach by how I live my life.

Peace,

daughter
 
i agree cheyenne, but the evil being done by molesting priests isn't being done in God's name...it's just being done

far more damaging to the thousands of truly holy clergy in the church is the institutionalized coverup by their leaders...THAT is being done in God's name in a horribly misguided attempt to keep the church from looking bad

most everyone would agree that evil exists everywhere, even in the houses of God, but when the church pretends that it doesn't, the populace begins to take note

and the church is looking worse than ever because of it

and children continue to be horribly damaged

and american catholics like me walk away from our church with tears in our eyes, to float untethered from the religion of our mothers
 
sigh said:
i agree cheyenne, but the evil being done by molesting priests isn't being done in God's name...it's just being done

far more damaging to the thousands of truly holy clergy in the church is the institutionalized coverup by their leaders...THAT is being done in God's name in a horribly misguided attempt to keep the church from looking bad

most everyone would agree that evil exists everywhere, even in the houses of God, but when the church pretends that it doesn't, the populace begins to take note

and the church is looking worse than ever because of it

and children continue to be horribly damaged

and american catholics like me walk away from our church with tears in our eyes, to float untethered from the religion of our mothers

Exactly. I think what you said is what this paragraph was intended to address:

"If American Catholic leaders do not believe many members of their great religion have been negatively affected by the sick men in collars who molested children and by the institutional silence that concealed these men, these leaders are fooling themselves. Perhaps that is why the cardinal under whose jurisdiction 80 priests are charged with molesting children has not resigned. He does not realize how important such an act would be to restoring credibility to his church."

You've obviously been affected. So have many others.

If we can't expect our church leaders to stand up and label evil as being evil, who can we expect to do it?
 
Re: Re: When Silence Isn't Golden- evil is evil

lavender said:

I find this to be offensive. I find this to be hypocritical. I find this article to fail to mention all the violence and heinous activity promoted by Christianity over the centuries.

It also is biased against Muslims, specifically seeming to target Palestinians. What about all the needless violence perpetuated by the Israelis against the Palestinians all in the name of a Jewish homeland? A nation state that fails to separate church and state.

Lavy, I think you are personally so pro-Palestinian that it is the only thing you can see, even in an article that doesn't mention Palestinians at all. I believe the article is referring to the attack on the WTC by those who believed killing Americans in the name of Allah was a good idea. Read it again, please.

I read the article to be condeming ALL evil done in God's name, in ALL religions. Christianity included.
 
Re: Re: When Silence Isn't Golden- evil is evil

lavender said:


(((Snip)))

Then all religious people should stand up and say "Fuck you" to Jerry Falwell. They should say "Fuck you" to Pat Robertson. They should give a big fuck you to the church in Kansas that started ihatefags.com.

(((Snip))

. . . or maybe we should just say "fuck religion"?

There seems to be the presumption in many people's minds that religion is a benign or positive force, somewhere deep down there. But the odd thing is that religions just haven't been able historically to control their zeal for killing people. Maybe we should consider that it is the religious consciousness itself that is prone to such violence, that the world would be a more peaceful place if there were less religion rather than more.

Just a thought....
 
sigh said:
i agree cheyenne, but the evil being done by molesting priests isn't being done in God's name...it's just being done

far more damaging to the thousands of truly holy clergy in the church is the institutionalized coverup by their leaders...THAT is being done in God's name in a horribly misguided attempt to keep the church from looking bad

Absolutely...........Those in charge should resign.The institution that is the church must survive..These acts of molestation were not done in gods name...........But done by sick men who need to be removed from society........What I find offensive is individuals who wrap themselves in explosives then blow up innocent people in the name of god or Allah..This is some warped thinking.I dont agree with the Falwells or the Robertsons but I dont see there followers blowing themselves up and taking innocents with them...Yes there are fringe groups like the Church in Kansas those groups are few and far between.......There following is small........I find groups like NAMBLA offensive,Men who think its ok to have sex with young boys....Does that make me an intolerant hate monger?
 
Hamletmaschine said:
Maybe we should consider that it is the religious consciousness itself that is prone to such violence, that the world would be a more peaceful place if there were less religion rather than more.
It is not the religions that are prone to violence, it is the people that manipulate the religions for their own agendas. If we erased religion from the world, the same people would just find another method to advance their lust for power and domination over others. Religion is just the most convenient method at the moment.
 
Well done.

Mischka said:
It is not the religions that are prone to violence, it is the people that manipulate the religions for their own agendas. If we erased religion from the world, the same people would just find another method to advance their lust for power and domination over others. Religion is just the most convenient method at the moment.

There you go Mischka. Saved me a lot of writing and well said.

There are Religions though that are intrinsically evil or that as a part of their dogma profess acts on the part of their followers that are intolerable in any sense.

I happen to agree with one portion of what Lavy said. And that being her statement regarding politics and economics. Many of the "faithful" are being manipulated by men seeking power. I wonder if Arrafat really envisioned the self sustaining violence today that he unleashed 30 some years ago? He thought he could control it, it now threatens to consume him.

Ishmael
 
Mischka said:
It is not the religions that are prone to violence, it is the people that manipulate the religions for their own agendas. If we erased religion from the world, the same people would just find another method to advance their lust for power and domination over others. Religion is just the most convenient method at the moment.

Uh-huh. Sort of like the ol' "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" idea, huh?
 
I would not go so far as to categorize this article as offensive or hypocritical, there is one passage that I believe goes directly to the heart of the source of religiously motivated evil.

______________________
All of us who believe that God-based religion is indispensable to moral progress…
______________________

Therein lies the problem. Confusion of religion with morality is at the very root of the problem. When you make religion synonymous with morality, the next logical step is to categorize those who do not conform to your particular religious doctrine as immoral.



Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious *a nun in her 20th year of religion* b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs

Morality:
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Religion deals with mans relationship with God. Morality deals with mans relationship with man. The thought that we need a deity to tell us how to treat each other seems silly to me. The thought that so many people believe we need a deity to tell us how to treat each other scares me.

Morality is a subjective, and very personal concept. My conception of morality has always been very simple. If I want to know if a particular action is moral, I simply ask myself the question, “What would the world be like if everyone did it?” It’s a simple question, but it solves most real-life moral dilemmas fairly well.

Religion is a much harder thing to come to grips with. I think faith in a higher power in the universe is a good thing, but blind faith in another persons interpretations of the desires of a higher power is a dangerous thing. A human being elevated to the position of speaking for God is as close to absolute power as you can get. There is no logical argument that can fight, “Do this because God says so!” The stock and trade of organized religion is the elevation of people to just such a position.
 
Hamletmaschine said:
Uh-huh. Sort of like the ol' "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" idea, huh?
Har har. Not quite. More like "People use guns to kill people, and people use religion to kill people." Admittedly not as catchy, though.
 
Mischka said:
Har har. Not quite. More like "People use guns to kill people, and people use religion to kill people." Admittedly not as catchy, though.

Well, then, no wonder our country is so violent: we get to own both a gun and a religion!

;)
 
sigh said:
i agree cheyenne, but the evil being done by molesting priests isn't being done in God's name...it's just being done

far more damaging to the thousands of truly holy clergy in the church is the institutionalized coverup by their leaders...THAT is being done in God's name in a horribly misguided attempt to keep the church from looking bad. . .
I would agree only slightly. Once the church became aware of the fact that a priest was a molester and relocated him to conceal that fact, the church became a de facto supporter condoning the action rather than a beneficient agent to purge this criminal from society. This is much like the consummate politician who offers the public persona, a facade or fantasy, as real who carefully hides the real self from public view, a la Gary Condit.

Originally posted by lavender
I find this to be offensive. I find this to be hypocritical. I find this article to fail to mention all the violence and heinous activity promoted by Christianity over the centuries.

It also is biased against Muslims, specifically seeming to target Palestinians. What about all the needless violence perpetuated by the Israelis against the Palestinians all in the name of a Jewish homeland? A nation state that fails to separate church and state.
Somehow I'm not surprised. Your argument is the same lame attempt to justify today's events in terms of historical behaviors of people long dead. The events addressed by the article are very recent. What you address are centuries old.

There are evils committed today by Christians and these are almost universally denounced by the leaders as well as the lay people associated with these religions.

The evils committed by the Islamic followers against America have yet to be condemned by any of the Islamic clerics that I've heard. I have heard that there were debates among the Islamic leadership regarding the legitimacy of the attacks on America last September, but I have yet to hear any one them denounce the people who were the organizers and perpetrators as outcasts of the Islamic faith.

When people die in the middle east as the result of terrorist attacks or retaliation therefor, I have yet to see Christians (or anyone else) in America or anywhere for that matter celebrating in the streets burning the flag of that nation. But I have seen Islamic people celebrating the attacks on America, burning our flag and rejoicing over the death and destruction wrought in the name of their religion.

The message this sends me is that America is a civilized nation trying to survive and prosper in a world where it must somehow deal with uncivilized savages and a great many of those ascribe to the Islamic faith.

And speaking of bias, your assertion smacks of horrific bias. Your idea that the Jews should not defend themselves is preposterous. What should they do? Allow the Palestinians to simply annihilate them? Because that's the self-declared aim of the Arabic nations, to drive the Israeli's into the sea. Was that aim not explicitly stated in the PLO charter until VERY recently? And are you really so naive that you believe that just because it was removed from their written charter that they have actually come to the realization that this was an ignoble goal? How many attacks in the conflict you identify have been initiated by the Jews? How did Israel come to occupy the West Bank and Gaza? Did they initiate an invasion offensive?

Admittedly I may have missed it, but from my recollection, virtually every Israeli strike has been retaliatory, meaning defensive. The Israelis have on occasion, I believe, exercised preemptive strikes but then against specific threats (as opposed to random civilians) whereas the Palestinian attacks against Israel have been indiscriminate attacking innocent women and children more often than a military objective.

I believe they came to control the Occupied Territories as a result of winning a war of annihilation initiated against them some years ago. Typically throughout history, land annexed by the victor in a war becomes their land, not occupied territory. Yet the attitude toward Israel seems to be that this standard of history is not to apply.

You also seem to be condemning Israel for not separating church and state. Name an Islamic nation that does. Even Afghanistan which has just been freed of the oppressive yoke of the Islamic religion under the Taliban are establishing a government which is embracing Islamic religious law.

Also, name an Islamic nation that has created an industrialized and successful economy even remotely approaching that of Israel.

Contrast the mentality of the two peoples and tell me there are many if any similarities. Do the Israeli's teach their children from their preadolescence to hate and despise and murder Arabic people? Does their religion teach that it is moral to form a treaty with an enemy to buy time to raise the necessary forces to attack and destroy them? Does the Jewish religion teach that it is honorable to lie to those of all other beliefs because their is the only true religion? Many in the Islamic world do precisely these things to perpetually engender the generationally inculcated hatred of the Jews and other Infidels.
 
Sorry Unclebill

Also, name an Islamic nation that has created an industrialized and successful economy even remotely approaching that of Israel.

Turkey, it's name is Turkey. It's easy to get lost in the shuffle when you're civilized. It appears that they are beginning to come under intense pressure from the radicals, especially on the eastern border.

Ishmael
 
Funny how good religions turn bad. You've got a man with a good idea. He shares this good idea. Some people agree with him, that this is a good idea. Others disagree, saying that this isn't a good idea.

Anyway, a little time goes by and the man with the good idea dies. People then start taking the good idea a *little* bit too seriously. They argue about the good idea, use the good idea to advance political causes and do everything in their power to convince others that this is indeed a good idea. Eventually, someone kills another over this good idea. Eventually, all the arguements and politics obscure the good idea, and people forget.

This is not what the man with the good idea wanted at all.

I don't think there is any reason to dismantle religions, rather I think it is more important to dismantle dogma that has developed around religions. Worship, of whatever type, is important to the human psyche; Dogma and Politics is detrimental to the human psyche.

I want to start my own religion; anyone who wants to join can come with me. I promise not to pretend to be a leader - we can all just find a good way to worship together and be happy without dogma. "All questions of the Law are to be decided... each for him[or her]self."
 
Re: Sorry Unclebill

Originally posted by Ishmael
Turkey, it's name is Turkey. It's easy to get lost in the shuffle when you're civilized. It appears that they are beginning to come under intense pressure from the radicals, especially on the eastern border.

Ishmael
BINGO! We have a winner. Do we have another?

Please, don't be sorry. I figured (and hoped) someone out there was thinking.
Originally posted by Black_Bird
I don't think there is any reason to dismantle religions, rather I think it is more important to dismantle dogma that has developed around religions. Worship, of whatever type, is important to the human psyche; Dogma and Politics is detrimental to the human psyche.
Religion by its very nature is detrimental if you consider that man's primary tool of survival is his mind. Religion requires that he negate his mind and accept on blind faith that which his rational faculty would evaluate as meaningless.

So in order to ascribe to religion, man must subordinate his intellect, his primary tool of survival, to mysticism.

How can that be a good thing?

And what is religion if not dogma? Is there a religion whose basis is not in altruism? And does not altruism negate the importance of oneself? Does it not put as primary the welfare of others, any others, above one's own welfare?

Altruism traps man's mind in the horrible dichotomy of assuring his own survival at the price of being declared unworthy by its moral code. The mind-body dichotomy offered by altruism and its advocates makes human life miserable by its entrapment in a maze of contradictions.

As to worship being important to the human psyche, I wonder because it isn't to me. The closest I come to an object of worship is our most gracious and lovely web mistress, the Almighty Laurel :heart::kiss:, and, of course, my granddaughter:heart::kiss:.
 
Re: Re: Sorry Unclebill

Unclebill said:
So in order to ascribe to religion, man must subordinate his intellect, his primary tool of survival, to mysticism.

How can that be a good thing?

it can be a good thing because there is more to the mind, more to ourselves, than intellect

and i can't really debate this with you bill because we build our world views upon utterly different sets of premises...yours is a world of logic, and i can't out-logic you...and more to the point, i don't even want to out-logic you

mine is a world where logic is but one piece, but where feelings and intuition and altruistic tendencies and (gasp) mysticism are not only non-alien entities, but integral pieces of the whole which is me

i love the way you talk though, bill...refute me please...i enjoy the ramrod straightness of your mind

you know, you'd do very well on vulcan
 
Juspar Emvan said:
Define evil.

i doubt if i can define it, juspar...but the next time i see it, i'll be sure to point it out to you

i have no problem recognizing it
 
geez laurel...you did that even faster than cheyenne
 
Back
Top