Religion and it's responsibility for insanity

[Leo Volont]

possibly I use the word "Insane" in a different way.

The insanity of 9/11 ....

"Differently" or "Wrongly".

Yes, some people have used the word 'Insanity' in a poetic way, in order to symbolically indict the judgements of others which they disagree with so intensely as to imply that their faculties must be disordered.

But question these terrorists. The Substance of their Realities is the same as the Substance of ours. We live in and perceive the same World. The difference is in Moral Context. They believe that Societies that are extremely hostile to their own can fairly be treated as enemies, and they refuse the distinction whereby Powerful Citizens can claim they are off limits to the violence of Just Revenge because they have arranged for Working Class Military men to stand in for the Danger which the Terrorists think the Entire Society deserves. But we have been raised in This Society and have been taught not to question the distinction whereby most of the members of a Society that oppresses other societies, and benefits from that oppression, are somehow still 'innocent' simply because they do not wear uniforms.

But when you evaluate the Actions of some Western Military Coalitions, which claim they are NOT terrorist. We find that they have the same practical view toward the Societies they chose to attack. Where the Propaganda proclaimes that only one person, like Saddam Husein, is truly the only guilty person within an entire Country, when it comes to the bomb dropping and the machine gunning, it turns out that nobody in the Entire Country is entirely exempt. As applied by both Sides of the Conflict, at the practicaly 'in the field' level, nobody is treated as 'innocent'. And if you were to strictly keep score, the Anti-Terrorists have by far killed many more un-uniformed men, women, and even babies.

But it is not insanity. It is simply moral dereliction.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Leo, "the insanity of 9/11" is reference to not just the religious and societal conflicts but also to the insanity that created these conflicts in the first instance.

Attitudes towards the middle east, towards finding an equitable solution, the insanity of ideological conflict that has created an enviromnment of hatred and hostility.

In this sense I use the word insanity in it's broadest definition.

9/11 was a symptom of an insane world. The terrorist being that worlds' creation.

It is unfortunate that religion is a part of this insanity and I would suggest that the institutionalisation of irrationality across the board has a lot to do with it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

and I might add the issue of institutionalised irrationality and it's effects has yet to be addressed properly in this thread. Maybe I need to start another thread with out specific reference to religion?

 

[Leo Volont]

In this sense I use the word insanity in it's broadest definition.

And just the other day I was arguing that it was silly to declare definitions for each term used -- that we should all assume the understood definitions of the English Language and save a lot of time.

But now you hit me with this instance of Newspeak Gibberish. You wish to insult people and so you use words you think will be most derogatory, abandoning all connection to their original and intended sense, and excuse yourself that you are using your terms 'most broadly'. There should be a law so that you can be horse-whipped for such abuses.

You give 'Insanity' the stain of moral evil which it inherently does not contain or deserve. You are gratuitously insulting Insane People by lumping them in with Terrorist and Militarists.

 

[Quantum Quack]

maybe you should have stuck with your original arguement and sort definitions "to save a lot of time"

So you would have me horsewhipped for your own narrow view of that which is insanity.

Have you worked out what I am trying to discuss yet?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You give 'Insanity' the stain of moral evil which it inherently does not contain or deserve. You are gratuitously insulting Insane People by lumping them in with Terrorist and Militarists.

A man hijacking a plane and flying it into a building to help destroy the devil called America is no different to a man hijacking a plane to kill all it's pasengers to release the devil with Gods blessing.
It's just a question of scale.

And again I pose the question

What responsibility do we have for allowing such a paradox of rationality exist and the outcomes of such. After all is not a paradox of rationality exactly what insanity is?
By allowing this state to exist are we not condemming ourselves to the symptoms of this paradox. ie 9/11?

 

[Leo Volont]

Have you worked out what I am trying to discuss yet?

Wow! You really do expect the universe to revolve exclusively around you.

I see Forums as polite conversations, not like police interrogations. Have you ever been to a polite party where people talk... probably not... but this is what happens. What one persons says suggests ideas in other people's minds and then they share. As long as the conversation continues the host sees it as a great success.

but then we can have whining crying little babies that complain that no body wants to talk about them.

 

[Leo Volont]

no different

A Great Philosopher once stated that Intelligence is proven at the practical level by the sophistication of the distinctions that the mind can comprehend. People who are all the time saying that they see "NO DIFFERENCE" in the categories that are being explained to them only prove that they are of lesser intelligence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Quantum Quack,

I just find it saddening that alot of persons will rationalise with something that is essentially "irrational" and there in create a problem.

There's nothing irrational about religion, as religion is a way of life. The "problem" to which you refer is personal to every individual and occurs in all walks of life. In the case of 911, my understanding is that it occurred because of politics, userping of land, oppression of people through economy, that kind of thing. The fact that people are religious in these situations is secondary.

... But insanity could be described as the rationalisation of the irrational.

It could be described as many things, it depends on who is doing the describing.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There's nothing irrational about religion, as religion is a way of life.

Telling my children this is not irrational:

"you are a sinner even though you have commited no crime other than being born"

"If you don't believe in Jesus you will burn in hell"

"That your body is an object of guilt and shame"

"that one day the world was flooded killing people including children because God got pissed of with his creation"

"that sexuality for pleasure is a sin"

and so on and so on......

You feel that this is a rational thing to teach our children.
And the most confounding thing of all.......

None of what you are expected to believe has any grounding or evidence to support it except that of the writen word and other peoples beliefs.

Is it no wonder that people are confused and condone irrational behaviour when it is so entrenched in society as acceptable.

"if it's Ok for God to kill people then why can't I" type reasoning..

 

[Leo Volont]

Quack the Duck is missing the point regarding Spirituality. Quack apparently wants to drive mysticism out of the World so that there can be an unalloyed appreciation of sensual hedonism. He must be young. Such pleasures do not last. Should we not consider ourselves lucky that Higher Pleasures not contingent upon youthful vitality can be found?

Then Quack mentions that once or twice in all of history that an individual here or there may have been victimized by Religion. Quack of course ignores that the Worst Most Sweeping and Repeated Atrocities have been committed by the Non-Religious Barbarian Hordes. It is only the Civilizing Influence of Religion which brings recognition of any Moral Vision.

Quack's own Moral Fastidiousness is simply the results of a Cultural Inertia that had been set in motion by Religion ... in his case probably Catholicism. If he had not come out of a Religious Tradition, he would more than likely not be Posting about the Moral Abuses of Religion, but perhaps he would be sharing recipes for Cannibal Stew. He attacks Religion with the very tools that only Religion could have provided, for in no instance in Human History has a Civilization arisen outside of a Religious Mileau. Godless Barbarians simply can't make a go of it the Way Religious People can.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In the evolution of mankind man has stiven to find a better understanding of himself and his environment. Religion has been a necessary part of this evolution, this there is no doubt.

As part of the continuing sruggle to continue this evolution there comes a time when man kind has to develop a a rationality that is free of the paradox that religion inspires.

It is not so much that religion has failed for it is true that in many ways it has succeeded. But for mankind to move into a saner future religion has to be put in perspective of something that is in many ways an obsolete encumberance on our future developement.

 

[Leo Volont]

In the evolution of mankind man has stiven to find a better understanding of himself and his environment. Religion has been a necessary part of this evolution, this there is no doubt.

As part of the continuing sruggle to continue this evolution there comes a time when man kind has to develop a a rationality that is free of the paradox that religion inspires.

It is not so much that religion has failed for it is true that in many ways it has succeeded. But for mankind to move into a saner future religion has to be put in perspective of something that is in many ways an obsolete encumberance on our future developement.

All Civilizations have arisen on Religion and they have all collapses after their Religions collapsed. For all the Intellectual Pretentions that total Atheists will still be Moral Beings, you need only look at the Moral History of the West since the Defeat of Centralized Christendom (the Collapse of the Secular Power of the Catholic Church). Divisions, infighting, Wars, and the acceleration toward disasterous levels of Concentration of Wealth have all been moving forward. Arnold Toynbee, the Expert on Civilization, has frankly declared our Civilization already Dead but only still to Fall Down.

Without the Moral Influence of a Religion, we have only the Interests of Barbarism to guide us. These are all Selfish and Predatory. Each Generation removed from Religion become more Selfish and Predatory. Look at the American Republican Party's Platform -- they now hold up Greed and Selfishness as Virtues. Unifying Government is held to be The Enemy and they propose that Private Individuals be given the Right and Power to for unrestricted exploitation of the People and the Environment. They have moved up to encouragiang World Conquest.

So you think Unrestricted Secular Barbarism is better than Religion? That is not how it has been playing out.