sootyj
Monday 16th February 2009 5:26pm [Edited]
51,287 posts
Quote: PhQnix @ February 15 2009, 10:40 PM GMT
Lenin, Mao and Pot did not draw their conclusions from their atheism, so the comparison is a tad overstretched. Even so I would not think to argue that all religious thinkers do stifle freedom of thought, being religious doesn't necessarily equate with stifling freedoms. I would, however, argue that any ideologically based organisation by its very nature seeks to stifle free thinking. This includes any religious organisation and any totalitarian government.
I do not think that all organised religion is bad, I do thin there is a link between the oppression of people across the world and religion, however. Regardless if this is someone suffering in Iran or the USA or in England it's not right.
Well Mao and Pol Pot's aetheism was an outgrowth of their greater socialist beliefs. In the same way that belief in God is only part of a religious person's belief. If you mean fundamentalist stifles some areas of thought you're probably right. But not all religions are fundamentalist and most have very few "hard articles of faith." I think you may be thinking of how religion like all belief systems can be abused.
We also need to see oppression in context. And that means accepting there is a sliding scale. I'll opose some one trying to ban Jerry Springer the Opera and cervical cancer jabs. I'll also oppose stoning of homsexuals both are wrong.
The thing is one is worse, I'm surprised you don't see it. The number of women abused, mutilated or killed due to certain Islamic (and in fairness animist) principles in this country is disturbing (even if this reflects a obdurate minority). It's good to see the police finally taking this seriously (social services need to catch up frankly!)
