Religion is a control mechanism?

[Majere Dreavan]

Okay, I'm going to be bad (Don't hate me as I should be asleep) by bypassing the pages of arguments to answer the opening question.

Yes, Religion is a control mechanism, regardless of the religion (I know there are exceptions, just too tired to go into it)

You see interpretation is key here, not interpretation of religious texts by the masses, but by the religious leaders. They control what is preached, how they view other religions and quite often incur hatred towards other religions and nations by their teachings. That is controlling thoughts and actions of their followers. If that is not a control mechanism then clearly I'm looking in the wrong dictionary. *heads off to bed*

Hold on, Are we for real gonna get back on track!? Awesome!! Can't wait!

On to you others, Christianity is not evil. People who are christians have the ability to be evil
Catholicism, is not evil. People who are Catholic, have the capacity to be evil.
Atheism, is not evil, People are evil.

Want to know the real reason all these people died? All these terrible things were done by so and so and whoever? People are a plague on the earth, and if it wasn't for some sort of reason to do good, we would all do bad. If religion was completely absent, we would have no reason to better ourselves, we would sit in sin and vice and destroy our world. People need to be controlled, And civil law is a weak way to control. But religion is a good way.

Hence the argument, Is religion, Merely a control mechanism invented by the ancient humans to prevent cataclysm?

[Xenophile]

Is religion, Merely a control mechanism invented by the ancient humans to prevent cataclysm?

I believe that this will an worthwhile addition to this debate.

The Evolution of Religions

"The Evolution of Religions", a lecture by Jared Diamond, professor of geography at UCLA.

[Serephino]

You want articles?  Okay then....

'Witches' burnt to death in Kenya

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8119201.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/18/world/apartheid-s-grisly-aftermath-witch-burning.html

http://www.google.com/#q=witch+burning+africa&hl=en&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=bYsRTIGGGIKKlwfpoKzTBw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CC4QqwQwAw&fp=68f5903c0105829e

There you are....  It's not bullshit, there are even videos.  Are the BBC and New York Times reliable enough sources for you?  It's the ugly truth.  Also, actual witches may not have been killed in the Salem witch trials, but I'm sure some were in Medieval Europe.  And that really isn't even the problem.  The problem comes because the church decided to take the stance of if you can't convert them, demonize and kill them!  I don't remember the exact chapter and numbers, but there is a phrase that now reads; 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'.  In the original Greek the phrase was; 'thou shalt not suffer that which poisons to live'. 

And actually, girl scouts don't come knocking on my door and hound me.  We occasionally get kids doing school fundraisers, but you can't even compare that because they aren't even trying to get me to believe anything.  I get Christian fliers left on the inside of my door by local churches.  I find it to be complete arrogance on their part to think I just need to be shown the way.  I'm good thanks.

Oh, and there is the assumption that the country was founded on Christian values, and it needs to be kept that way.  Benjamin Franklin was a founding father, right?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/288090/ben_franklin_and_his_membership_in.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/hellfire_club.htm

He was also a member of a Satanist club.....  I know I'm a bit rusty, but isn't Satan the enemy of God?

Now... onto the Pope and condoms....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29734328/


I'm really not sure why you have taken upon yourself to defend Christianity so fiercely.  I was merely explaining why the religion has become a target, but you had to rip everything apart because I didn't list evidence?  And when Hairy did link an article, you had to rip that apart too.  How much do you know about your own religion? 

The Pope is the figurehead.  All those nuts protesting, the people knocking on doors... this is what the public sees.  The public face of the church is not a positive one right now.  And yes, other people protest things like violent video games, but if you jumped off a bridge, and a bunch of other people did it too, but for a different reason, does that automatically mean you're any less of an idiot?  Anyone who protests anything out of ignorance is still a nutjob, religious conviction doesn't magically make it okay. 

[Brandon]

Aha! I think I found what you were talking about with people being burned at the stake Hairy. For the record, after what I saw in the article I listed I believe that this site is intolerant of Christianity, but for now Im going to try and assume that it is not. Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_afri.htm

"In Southern Africa, decades of violent repression and armed struggles against it have led to a 'culture of violence'. Witchcraft and witch hunts [directed against evil sorcery] are but two manifestations of that." 1

The Ministry of Safety and Security of South Africa's Northern Province created a Commission of Inquiry into Witchcraft, Violence and Ritual Killings. The Commission issued a report in 1996-MAY which showed that thousands of people had been accused of witchcraft, run out of town and lost their property. More than 300 had been killed by vigilante mobs over the previous ten years. The victims were accused of "shape-shifting" themselves from human form into bats and birds, of converting people into zombies, and of causing death by calling down lightning or through the use of toxic medicines. These beliefs are quite similar to those which circulated during the Witch burning craze of the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Europe circa 1450 to 1792 CE. Those Witches didn't exist either. One possible source of confusion in the country is the Suppression of Witchcraft Act (1957) which does not differentiate between most forms of traditional African healing and evil sorcery (black magic). It banned both practices.

Ten farms have been set up in the Northern Province to hold hundreds of refugees who have been found guilty of witchcraft by traditionalist kangaroo courts and are in danger of being assassinated by mob action.

The Congolese Human Rights Observatory recently announced that more than 60 people had been burned or buried alive in that country since 1990 - including 40 in 1996. The victims were accused, often by members of their own family, of being witches.

On 1998-SEP-7, a conference involving about 200 police and government representatives was convened in Thohoyandou, South Africa. Its purpose was to curb Witchcraft-related deaths. Between 1994-APR and 1995-FEB, 97 women and 46 men in South Africa had been accused of being Witches or Wizards, and murdered by townspeople or rural individuals. In the first 6 months of 1998, in the Northern Province alone, 386 crimes had been perpetrated against suspected witches; these included murder, damage to property and assault. Victims accused of Witchcraft are typically women between 55 and 72 years of age. Murders are most common in the rainy season, when Witches are accused of directing lightning at people that they wish to destroy.

It will be very difficult to eradicate crimes against suspected Witches. Ill-educated people are convinced that evil Witches exist and react violently in what they consider to be self-defense.

According to African Eye News Service, The South African Gender Commission is  sponsoring a road show which features former Witch-hunters committed to changing people's beliefs about Witches and evil spirits. Some of the 33 actors had been given amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after they testified that witchcraft-related violence in the former homelands was politically motivated. The Gender Commission said on 2000-JUL-19 that its road show had dramatically reduced Witchcraft-related violence.

Alright well the thought of witches being burned at the stake is indeed disturbing in todays day and age. I can not deny that the events are christian influenced by the actions taken during the Medevil and Rennisance eras, but are they done by christians? Well the odds say yes they are here is a breakdown of the religious population in Congo: Protestant (including Kimbanguism) 46.5%, Roman Catholic 41.5%, Orthodox 0.1%, other Christian 6.9%, Indigenous 2.8%, Muslim 0.9%, Non-religious 0.7%, Hindu 0.1%, and other 0.5%[59]. According to Encycolpedia Britanica the continents breakdown looks like this: 45% of the population are Muslims, 40% are Christians and less than 15% are non-religious or follow African religions.

So the odds say that Christians are probably burning "Witches" in Africa. I question whats really going on down there but I highly doubt it has anything to do with Witches. The Salem witch trials showed us the depths of mankinds willingness to manipulate the law to get rid of people in the case of rivalries or feed their greed due to land disputes but I honestly can not fathom how a Father or mother could send their own child to a gruesome and painful end like that. Once again, we see an anti-witch law and in turn death follows. It seems to me that the law is the problem, not the religion

Lets take a look at the response from the Pope though. Source: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/condemned-pope-witchcraft-reality-africa

Many Africans, the pope said, “are living in fear of spirits, of malign and threatening powers. In their bewilderment, they end up even condemning street children and the elderly as alleged sorcerers.”

Benedict called upon Catholics to “to proclaim that Christ has triumphed over death and all those occult powers.”

A lot of people will look at that and say "See! They arent condemning burning Witches." and you know what? You would be right but you miss the finer point. The subtle message that says, be careful not to condemn the innocent in your fear. We all do stupid and sometimes terrible things when were afraid, thats human nature. Personally Im pretty disappointed in the Pope for that statement

Sparkling Angel: IN todays day and age the media has become corrupt, always spinning things to promote some view point or agenda. So knowing that, yes. Yes I am going to go over the articles. Yes I am going to speak up if I see slant. Yes I am going to point it out when I see FACTS contradicting each other. Most of all you are absolutely right that I am going to stand up against the bias

"The only thing necessary for the truimph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

I see the systematic demonizing of a religious group as evil. So you know what, you better believe Im going to do something about it

I will read and respond to your articles later

[Serephino]

The thing is, I'm not demonizing Christianity.  The point I was trying to make is that the church is catching so much flack lately because of all the things that they've done in the past, AND the things they are doing now. 

I will agree that when it comes to politics, the media can be a bit slanted sometimes.  But when it comes to quotes, and recorded events, you can't attack it because it isn't what you want to hear.  The article I listed does quote the Pope as saying condoms are not the answer to curing AIDS, but rather the practice of abstinence is.  While that may actually help, it is well known that the Catholic church says contraception is a sin because God told Adam and Eve to multiply and be fruitful.   

[Brandon]

The thing is, I'm not demonizing Christianity.  The point I was trying to make is that the church is catching so much flack lately because of all the things that they've done in the past, AND the things they are doing now. 

"the church did come out saying that condoms will spread HIV."

"The church is still trying to tell people what to think and believe, and trying to shove it down everyone else's throats."

"But Christian people bang on our doors and preach, tell us we're going to hell, picket and protest things in the media they don't like, molest little kids and hide it, and all sorts of things that make them a major pain in the ass.  "

"Some Christians have taken it upon themselves to spread the word of God and make everyone see the light even if it means ramming it down their throats repeatedly until they convert just to shut you up.  "

Thats all from one post. Are you seriously trying to tell me you werent trying to demonize them? If so we must have very different definitions of that word

I will agree that when it comes to politics, the media can be a bit slanted sometimes.  But when it comes to quotes, and recorded events, you can't attack it because it isn't what you want to hear. 

True. What does that have to do with a news article that 1. Doesnt site its sources. 2. shows bad journalism habits. 3. Has an obvious slant and 4. Contradicts itself? Hairy's news article, was not Journalism, it was more "hate these guys" speech. Did I not prove that?

The article I listed does quote the Pope as saying condoms are not the answer to curing AIDS, but rather the practice of abstinence is.  While that may actually help, it is well known that the Catholic church says contraception is a sin because God told Adam and Eve to multiply and be fruitful.   

That bolded part is incorrect. Unatural contraception is what they are against. Theres a book keeping method (I dont remember what the name is, if it has a name) where the female keeps track of menstration cycles and periods to determine her current fertility rate. That is an accepted form of birth control in the catholic church as well as abstinence. However going strictly by the bible any kind of sex for any reason except procreation is also a sin. Evolution of the church's beliefs, right there in front of you

[Will]

You keep splitting hairs, Brandon.  -_-

Replace "contraception" with "condoms," and the point remains the same.

[Brandon]

You keep splitting hairs, Brandon.  -_-

Replace "contraception" with "condoms," and the point remains the same.

Unnatural condoms is what theyre against...maybe Im missing something here can you elaborate? Doesnt everything come from nature in some form from human beings to toxic waste? Maybe I just dont get what youre trying to say

Point of order: I was correcting a common misconception. Subtle differences can be important, for example someone once said that Catholic belief forces you to be a good person (by their standards). Thats incorrect, it tells you there are consequences for acting as a good or evil person. The choice to be either is still yours

[Oniya]

That bolded part is incorrect. Unatural contraception is what they are against. Theres a book keeping method (I dont remember what the name is, if it has a name) where the female keeps track of menstration cycles and periods to determine her current fertility rate. That is an accepted form of birth control in the catholic church as well as abstinence. However going strictly by the bible any kind of sex for any reason except procreation is also a sin. Evolution of the church's beliefs, right there in front of you

Speaking as a woman who keeps obsessively rigorous track of her cycles:  What you are referring to is called the 'rhythm method'.  There is a word for people whose only form of contraception is the rhythm method.



Parents.

[Will]

Unnatural condoms is what theyre against...maybe Im missing something here can you elaborate? Doesnt everything come from nature in some form from human beings to toxic waste? Maybe I just dont get what youre trying to say

Point of order: I was correcting a common misconception. Subtle differences can be important, for example someone once said that Catholic belief forces you to be a good person (by their standards). Thats incorrect, it tells you there are consequences for acting as a good or evil person. The choice to be either is still yours

But correcting that common misconception does nothing to change his point, nor does it affect much of anything else. : /

[Brandon]

But correcting that common misconception does nothing to change his point, nor does it affect much of anything else. : /

Thats not really true, because it proves that there are some forms of contraception that the church allows for. Theres a big difference between saying "you cant have any contraception" and "you have these options". Kind of like if you were diagnosed with cancer and the difference between someone saying "We can do nothing for you" and "Well we can do this this and this". Once again it comes into absolutes, just like the HIV infection rate through condom use mentioned earlier (100% myth vs the 90+% fact). You didnt think that mattered either but it absolutely does because one is an absolute

[Will]

These differences don't change the point of the statements.  The Catholic Church lied about the condoms; the degree to which they lied is irrelevant.

[Brandon]

These differences don't change the point of the statements.  The Catholic Church lied about the condoms; the degree to which they lied is irrelevant.

You say they lied about the effectivness of condoms but Ive yet to see your source for that information. You obviously cant use Hairy's article because I already showed that it was, at the very least, suspect. We keep going around in circles here Will.

[Will]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

[Brandon]

*points to the exact same contradiction that was in Hairy's article*

Once again, translation and same myth occures. Did you read Hairy's article? because that was the same article as this one

[Silk]

You do realise your comparing a full condition product to a dysfunctional one brandon. Saying a broken condom doesn't work has no basis on the effectiveness of condoms that are not damaged in some way. It would be like saying "Fire alarms should not be used because sometimes their battery runs out, So you are better off not having a fire alarm and removing all things from your home that can catch and cause a fire" It leaves no real alternative to not using a dysfunctional product.

[Oniya]

Actually, he's comparing a near-total prevention with a properly used product to a guaranteed-total prevention with a properly used product.  The problem is, even with perfect usage of any product, there are bound to be some failures.

The thing is, not even abstinence is a 100% prevention for AIDS or even STDs.  People can catch AIDS from needle-sticks.  (I worked IT in an AIDS lab for a while, and we were required to know where the emergency antivirals were located.)  There have been bank robbers that have used syringes of their own blood as weapons/threats.  STDs can be transmitted by heavy petting if one partner is 'shedding'.  There are nearly perfect prevention methods, though, and quibbling over a few percentage points is casuistry.

[HairyHeretic]

*points to the exact same contradiction that was in Hairy's article*

Once again, translation and same myth occures. Did you read Hairy's article? because that was the same article as this one

Do you believe that any inaccuracies or perceived bias render a source or article completely worthless? Because if so, then you're going to have a lot of trouble in finding any information you can use.

Refering back to the article you dismiss, look at this statement

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

Now, is he lying? Yes or no?

[Ramster]

Yes.

Thats not really true, because it proves that there are some forms of contraception that the church allows for. Theres a big difference between saying "you cant have any contraception" and "you have these options". Kind of like if you were diagnosed with cancer and the difference between someone saying "We can do nothing for you" and "Well we can do this this and this". Once again it comes into absolutes, just like the HIV infection rate through condom use mentioned earlier (100% myth vs the 90+% fact). You didnt think that mattered either but it absolutely does because one is an absolute.

The "methods of contraception" condoned by the Catholic church, to use your analogy, would be like a doctor telling your cancer patient: "We can leave your condition to rot so you die in agony, or we can give you our traditional leech therapy."

The reason you're getting so much flak is because not only is Catholicism a control mechanism headed by a (former?) Nazi who claims to be the infallible vicar of Christ on Earth.

It is a belief system and organisation that imposes celibacy, categorically opposes abortion and contraception of all useful kinds, preaches homosexuality is an abortion, and systematically covers up paedophilia by its supposedly celibate priests who need something to do in between brainwashing children with the fear that they're going to hell,that they are born in sin, that another human being suffered and died two millennia ago to save them from this sin...

Do I need to go on? You have the right to believe what you believe, but to defend an organisation with such evil principles is going to piss off every non-Catholic on Elliquiy to some extent.

Do you want to hear about how other religions are evil? Read their holy books and draw your own conclusions.

Of course Catholics have done a lot of good as well, but the glaring crimes against humanity mentioned above which it still preaches today don't endear the Holy See to anyone.

[Brandon]

Oniya is correct. I should have been more clear that abstinence is the only way to prevent AIDS and HIV infection with 100% effectivness. You can not get an STD through sex if you dont have it afterall. Although I disagree with her about the percentage points when it comes to absolute protection vs a high chance of protection. I think thats an important point that is easily looked over just because of the numbers

I have at no time said that condoms shouldnt be used in Africa but I dont think they are the answer either. I agree with the catholic church in this case that abstenance is the best way to prevent the disease from spreading. However, unlike the church I am not opposed to giving the people access to condoms either because I know people are going to have sex with or without them. Better to protect them. However, most men wont wear them due to the psuedo-macho belief that codoms harm their masculinity. You can give a man a condom but you cant make him use it

Currently I am in the process of disproving that the church has made claims that condoms cause AIDS/HIV infection. I debunked the legitamacy of one article already, so lets move on to the Sparkling angel posted. The pope said "You can not solve the problem with condoms. On the contrary it increases the problem." To a point he is right, if the africans would use them (a big if mind you) then infections would slow to a crawl but it doesnt fix the problem either. This is another point where he and I are at opposition but no where in that article is it suggested or proven that that the church said condons cause HIV/AIDS infection like someof you pointed out.

[Lilias]

Catholicism is far from the only branch of religion advocating celibacy (Buddhism springs readily to mind, as far as the ordained are concerned, while premarital chastity is part of many more faiths and cultures). But E, by nature, is not exactly a celibacy-friendly environment, of whatever religious flavour. We'd never be considered a valid population sample, so we might as well stop considering ourselves one.

[Brandon]

Do you believe that any inaccuracies or perceived bias render a source or article completely worthless? Because if so, then you're going to have a lot of trouble in finding any information you can use.

Refering back to the article you dismiss, look at this statement

The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

Now, is he lying? Yes or no?

I choose option C: I dont know and I need to do some research before I can give an educated opinion

Edit: Assuming the article is true (you already know what Ill say to that) then I would say yes just due to th elanguage used. SPerm can not easily pass through the net of a condom, but it can pass through. Once again subtle but important difference. This guess was done before I completed my research on sperm and disease sizes

I belive small inaccuracies are fine something like "this happened Friday when it really happened saturday", but when I see a slant, bad journalism, contradictions with in the article all together. Yes I will dismiss it.

[Majere Dreavan]

Preventing Disease
If your only concern is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, there are condoms made from animal skins that appeal to some people. Be warned, though, both the FDA and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention caution that condoms made from animal skins do not protect against HIV and other STDs. The tiny viruses can pass through the pores of animal skin condoms. If preventing disease is your goal, choose a latex condom. Look for packages that include the words "this product contains natural rubber latex."

The FDA has approved several kinds of polyurethane condoms for people who are allergic to latex, but they stop short of giving unqualified approval to polyurethane condoms. In laboratory tests HIV does not pass through polyurethane, but additional testing is still needed. .(http://hubpages.com/hub/These-Arent-Your-Fathers-Condoms)

Hai Guys, Not to help derail my own conversation here, but I found this tid bit most fascinating. Apparently, Animal skin condoms allow disease to pass through! Could the pope have been thinking of these while he was referring to condoms, Might be his personal choice before he gave in to celibacy(or after). Not that it matters, To say that condoms don't help prevent disease, is a good way to scare the shit out of every sexually active youth. Imagine that, The catholic church using a control mechanism like fear.

[Brandon]

Alright Hairy I think I found the information youre looking for. Source for sperm size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon Source for HIV size: http://www.apositivelife.com/forasos/biology-of-hiv.html

Sperm is measured by about 5 micmeters by 3 micrometers and a tail that is about 50 micrometers long. To put that in perspective a single micrometer is One one thousanth of a milimeter

HIV particles have a diameter of 1/10,000th of a milimeter

So the Cardinal was right about HIV being smaller then the sperm. I dont know if thats 450 times smaller and I dont care to do that math either :P Considering the effectivness of condoms I still have a hard time believing that easily is an appropriate word for the ones that do get through.

Final answer, D: Hes right about some things wrong about the others

Majere also brings up a good point that I did not consider. Although I find his disrespect annoying I have to admit hes right. Cadinal T did not state what kind of condoms he was talking about when he said they could easily slip through

If you would like a look into the Cardinals mind before he passed away (2 years ago because of diabetes, the poor guy) I found the interview below. A lot of it is rhetoric but there are some interesting philosophical insights

http://www.wf-f.org/Lopez-Trujillooncondoms.html

[Lord Drake]

* Lord Drake really hopes he will manage to post only once here... :P

I personally think there is only a way to remain "in topic" here and it is to be as logic and rational as it is possible.

Depending on the environment in which similar questions are asked, I notice that often "Is Religion a way of controlling people" tends to become "Is Christianity/Islam/Scientology/Paganism/Insrtnamehere a way to control people?" Usually then you get to talk about specifical themes like the Bible, the fundamentalism and more often than not one of the most difficult theologic themes of the last century: condoms.

* Lord Drake has fallen into that trap himself, many times. ^^

Now... my personal take is more similar to Hairy's, I think.

Religion istitutions are actually control mechanisms in the common definition of the term. I think that trying to analyze what religions did of bad and good is a red herring here... a good ruler is still a ruler and it is not like under King Solomon's legendarily wise reign the decisions were taken by anyone different from Solomon...

:P

Religious institution tend to have less control upon themselves from their followers. A state is ideally under the scrutiny and control of the citizens who express their opinion in a various way (vote, ecc..). If the citizens have no way to actually influence the leaders, then they are necessarily controlled.

Also, the fact that the religious institution have usually less to fear from their subjects, is one of the reason for which they are so slow in adapting to the evolution of society. Actually I know about priests who think that the current scandal about pedophilia could end up actually being a GOOD thing for the catholic Church since it could force them to take some kind of step.

I think I will keep this short and to the point and stop here.