Test your savvy on Religion

Scott,

I think we would all agree that killing, lying and stealing are against the principles of Christianity, yet we find many people who say they are Christians engaging in these behaviors. I think it was Sarita who also made the point recently that the majority of child molesters in the U.S. would likely be Christians while the majority of child molesters in India would likely be Hindus. In both cases, it is not because either religion promotes child molestation but because the people who commit such acts are disregarding their religion and not following it.

Should I go ahead now and list headlines for each crime committed in the world today and then blame it on the religions of the people who committed the crimes?

That hardly seems logical.

Muslim women have every right to refuse arranged marriages. It is written into Islamic law that both parties must consent to a marriage. There is even a very famous story that took place at the time of Prophet Muhammed concerning forced marriage. A girl's father forced her into marriage without her consent, so she went to the Prophet to complain. When he heard what happened, he gave her the option of continuing the marriage or annulling it. The girl said, "Actually, I accept this marriage, but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right to force a husband on them."

When my (Muslim) brother-in-law got married a couple of years ago, his (Muslim) bride was very shy and did not want to say the equivalent of "I do" in front of the judge who married them. This was in Jordan, which applies Shariah law in family/personal matters like marriage. The judge stopped the whole proceeding and stated very clearly, "I cannot marry this couple unless the bride clearly gives her consent and states that she is not being coerced into this marriage." No one, including her father, her brother, her uncle, etc., could speak on her behalf or intervene. She had to give her consent, or the marriage would not go forward.

People who understand and practice Islam properly know how sensitive this issue is. They know there is no forced or coerced marriage in the religion of Islam.

Now, does it ever happen that Muslims force their children (male and female) into marriages they do not want? Yes, it happens, especially in countries where people are not so educated. For such people, allegiance to tribes and cultural traditions is very important, and I can guarantee you that such people usually think they are following Islam--not because of any book they ever read (including the Qur'an), but because they don't know any better.

Muslims who are educated, therefore, have a great responsibility to reach out to such groups with true Islamic teachings. Following true Islamic teachings is what will liberate women from the oppression that forced marriages bring. In this case, religion does provide the moral framework that will guide people to behave intelligently and responsibly.

Regarding so-called "honor" killings, Islam is against this practice as well and considers it an act of murder. I will explain this in more detail when I have time but would like to recommend that people obtain their information about Islam from reliable sources (legitimate Muslim scholars) and not random websites, even if the authors are ex-Muslims or have Muslim-sounding names. I would especially expect this from someone like Scott who spends much time exposing quackery and debunking myths about alternative medicine and warning people not to trust certain websites when it comes to health-related issues. In other words, please do not use anecdotes to support your preconceived ideas about what Islam (and other religions) teach and promote instead of looking at the actual evidence. Looking at the evidence, however, will take time and study and not just a quick search on Google.

 

If the religion to which you refer sanctions killings such as this, then they would have all been killed or thrown in jail by now. Why isn't that the case? And clearly Pol Pots, Stalins and Mao, as atheists, had no morals or their morals centered around what they believed was to their own perceived benefit. And you forgot to mention Hitler.

 

I don't understand what this means.

What?

Well. Since you brought it up... He was baptized a Catholic and was neither excommunicated nor distanced himself from the Catholic Church. In fact he frequently spoke of God and invoked Christianity in exterminating those killers of Jesus, the Jews. I could go on but I think the point is made. What people do in the name of their religion is not necessarily what the religion advocates. That goes for genocide of the Jews as well as honour killings.

You do realize Hank that I'm condemning those who do wrong in the name of religion and therefore am defending religion here? Yet you seemed determined to insist, without any evidence or cogent argument that people commit crimes BECAUSE they are atheists. Weird.

 

Good people will do good things,and bad people will do bad things.But for good people to do bad things-that takes religion.

~Steven Weinberg
Physicist and Nobel Laureate

 

Quoting a Nobel winning physicist speaking out of his field of expertise means his opinion carries little to no weight nor has any value other than being some dude's opinion. Since I have a BA in Religion and a Masters in Theology, I'll take my opinion since it is in a field where I have more training and knowledge than your scientist. I will consult Steven Weinberg if I have a physics question. I might even mention your name to see if he knows you. If he has similar qualifications to speak on this subject, maybe they should be mentioned.

 

There are a lot of people who give their opinions about various subjects,but just because they may not work in the religion industry doesn't mean their opinions are worthless.

 

Agreed, my point was that his opinion is of equal value to most everyone else's. Having won a Nobel Prize or being a renowned physicist doesn't rate his opinion on issues of evaluating people and blaming it on religion particularly noteworthy. His is just one more opinion, nothing superior. I doubt Billy Graham or the Pope's views of physics would carry inordinate weight in the physics community, nor should it.

 

I won't step in too far, because I haven't felt too argumentative lately (for at least 24 hours!); I will comment on Weinberg's remark. Yes, some good people do bad things in the name of religion, but there are countless reasons why good people can and do bad things. Conversely, some bad people do good things because of religion. Witness the brilliant sreenplay, Dead Man Walking. To me, many bad things have been done in the "name of religion", but I think the people perpetrating those acts often had a twisted view of religion. In the overall scheme of things, I think religion has done more good than harm. I like to think it has the potential to do even more good.

So, Weinberg's remark? not completely false, but certainly not accurate in reference to the big picture as this agnostic sees it.

 

I don't know about the true altruistic move of Jesus giving his life on the cross. He died knowing it would give only those who believed in him everlasting life. That, seems to me is a pretty good reward to die for...

 

Jordan,

I really enjoyed your post. I think you spelt out the issues really well. I agree with you that the link Scott posted is woefully biased and in my opinion, unconvincing. Even if we disregard the fact that this is an anti-Islam website and that the posters are zealous ex Muslims (i.e they are pushing an agenda), the evidence they provide in support of a position that Islam allows for or even advocates honour killing just doesn't stack up.

The passages from the Qu'ran they quote are confined to sexual behaviour, specifically fornication and adultery. The passages apply equally to men and women. The passages clearly spell out the punishment (flogging and stoning). For the writer to extrapolate or interpret that this somehow allows for women only, to be killed by their own family members, in any method (shooting/beating/stoning/whatever) for going against their family's wishes on any matter is a giant leap and is just not supported by the quotes they give.

So the message is quite clear:

1) some people do things in the name of their religion which the religion itself has not prescribed.

2) Some people of any or no religion will also do bad things without claiming their religion (or lack of it) allows for it.

3) Some people of any or no religion will do bad things in the name of political ideology.

4) Some people of any or no religion will do bad things because they are complete nutters.

 

I don't look this stuff up amigo. It appeared on Pharyngula yesterday, a blog I check out daily.

 

I don't know. If I'm going to criticize religion (only in my head, never on here, never on here) I have to give it its dues as well. You hear of plenty of people who turn their lives around within a framework of religion. I think this forum's resident pugilist (Chris) got through the drug scene with Christianity for example.

 

I recovered from alcoholism through a spiritual program, but it was not a religious program. As an addict, it's an important distinction. Addiction brings unyielding guilt, remorse, and shame for the things you have done, the people you have hurt. Many religions would damn me to hell for the things I did when I was drinking. If you are already doomed, what would be the point of getting sober? Through a spiritual program void of all religious moral judgment, you have a window to believe that you have been given a second chance not only at life but to make amends for your past without being swallowed up and owned by it. Again, I go back to Science. There is a path for all matter in the universe and if you get back on it again and fullfill your purpose, you are welcomed back into the fold without any stigma. Being a vital part of the process again is what is important.

 

Congratulations on your sobriety Carnyard.

 

Yes, Carnyard. I am glad that you have beaten it. I do not know serious addiction, but I have been close enough to it to witness the anguish of recovery.


But now, I expect you are well equipped to help someone in those same circumstances who comes across your path. And they will.

Here's to you.

 

Congrats Carnyard and I commend you for getting through all that! And yes back in the early 90's I was having alot of trouble getting off drugs(weed, cocaine, and pills)and I did turn to my friend's church for help and guidance, and while there I met this married couple in their early 50's who were very very nice people and who ran a support group on Friday nights 7pm - 10pm, and who opened up their very nice house to anyone who was struggling with any sort of problems or addictions. The wife would cook this huge dinner sometimes or we would do a pot luck dinner and all ate together, then we would read some scriptures and pray for a half hour, and then the flooor was open to discuss various problems all of us were going through in our lives. To this day I still stay in touch with that awesome couple through e-mails and phone calls here and there, and just let them know how thankful that I was for that support group and for all their help.

*This December makes 16 years I have been clean and sober!*

 

I take your point Intrepid and have experienced "eureka" moments from various sources. I guess physics and the stated opinion as "fact" or carrying special significance is what bothers me. The quote appears non sequitur.

 

There is so much wrong with this rant, that it doesn't deserve a response.

Tolerance? :

 

Why then did you respond?

 

Curses! So I guess we'll never know what was wrong with it .