The Salem Witch Trials

[lawtonfogle]

I'll go with, inspired by it. Without belief in the supernatural, these things don't happen.

Not true. There are plenty of everyday 'natural' things which one can get a community excited over, leading to mass injustic and possibly executions, such as being terrorist, communist (though this is nothing now-a-days), child rapist (I remember of a family day care torn apart due to hysteria which had not logical justification), and numerous other things. Supernatural is just really easy to use on those who believe it.

 

[Mling]

The Salem Witch Trials *were.*

The religion of that time period created a perfect environment for that sort of problem, but that sort of environment could be created with fears relating to race, crime, or any other number of issues.

The Bible is an inanimate object, however, and as such, had as little to do with the problem as the local trees.

*People* did it. People who used religion to justify it. Other people doing similar things have used race, nationality, handedness, previous crimes, jobs, national security and hair color, but these specific people justified it with their religion.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Not true. There are plenty of everyday 'natural' things which one can get a community excited over, leading to mass injustic and possibly executions, such as being terrorist, communist (though this is nothing now-a-days), child rapist (I remember of a family day care torn apart due to hysteria which had not logical justification), and numerous other things. Supernatural is just really easy to use on those who believe it.

Your confusion is thinking that by that statement I meant that humans don't become blind, panicky animals that can scapegoat people or things in a frenzied desire to feel safe. That is not what that statement meant.

 

[Inviolable]

The kind of rational liberals make all the time is as follows.
If a person donates time and money to the poor and less fortunate their silly to give credit to their belief and not themselves.

Reason being, the giving part of the person was always there and would of been there regardless of religion.

Same applies for the opposite.
And why wouldn't it?

If a person is cruel in the name of their religion, then the cruelty was always there.

However the common everyday liberal would rather mock and dehumanize the common everyday fundamentalist then use that logic and say the latter.
Why?
Because the common everyday liberal is a bigot toward the common every day fundy. And would rather use religion against fundamentalist.

 

[b&wpac4]

The kind of rational liberals make all the time is as follows.
If a person donates time and money to the poor and less fortunate their silly to give credit to their belief and not themselves.

Reason being, the giving part of the person was always there and would of been there regardless of religion.

Same applies for the opposite.
And why wouldn't it?

If a person is cruel in the name of their religion, then the cruelty was always there.

However the common everyday liberal would rather mock and dehumanize the common everyday fundamentalist then use that logic and say the latter.
Why?
Because the common everyday liberal is a bigot toward the common every day fundy. And would rather use religion against fundamentalist.

I don't use that sort of reasoning. If you are motivated by your religious beliefs to help the needy, I praise both the beliefs that inspire it and the fact that you follow the teachings and have the desire to help within you. If you are motivated to oppress people, I condemn both the religious beliefs that inspire you to oppress and the fact that you are cruel.

 

[Inviolable]

I don't use that sort of reasoning. If you are motivated by your religious beliefs to help the needy, I praise both the beliefs that inspire it and the fact that you follow the teachings and have the desire to help within you. If you are motivated to oppress people, I condemn both the religious beliefs that inspire you to oppress and the fact that you are cruel.

So do you split Christianity down the middle?

 

[b&wpac4]

So do you split Christianity down the middle?

In a sense. There are no calls to use your faith to oppress others.

 

[Belk]

The kind of rational liberals make all the time is as follows.
If a person donates time and money to the poor and less fortunate their silly to give credit to their belief and not themselves.

Reason being, the giving part of the person was always there and would of been there regardless of religion.

Same applies for the opposite.
And why wouldn't it?

If a person is cruel in the name of their religion, then the cruelty was always there.

However the common everyday liberal would rather mock and dehumanize the common everyday fundamentalist then use that logic and say the latter.
Why?
Because the common everyday liberal is a bigot toward the common every day fundy. And would rather use religion against fundamentalist.

Said the person using the broad brush.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The kind of rational liberals make all the time is as follows.
If a person donates time and money to the poor and less fortunate their silly to give credit to their belief and not themselves.

Reason being, the giving part of the person was always there and would of been there regardless of religion.

Same applies for the opposite.
And why wouldn't it?

If a person is cruel in the name of their religion, then the cruelty was always there.

However the common everyday liberal would rather mock and dehumanize the common everyday fundamentalist then use that logic and say the latter.
Why?
Because the common everyday liberal is a bigot toward the common every day fundy. And would rather use religion against fundamentalist.

You'll have to take that up with liberals.

For myself, the problem most people seem to have is a lack of understanding of the interrelated nature of many human institutions with our emotions. As an atheist, I espouse no supernatural origin or significance to any religion. They are purely constructs of superstition to me. It might be convenient to say, "bad people do bad stuff and people are prone to panicky, knee jerk reactions that often harm others." And this might be true, but it is also true it is simplistic. The underlying fact of why these things happen is in no way less understood when we examine the specific circumstances of any given occurrence.

It would be rather ridiculous to claim otherwise. If someone wants to paint with a broad brush in an effort to excuse themselves or a social group's history. That's their fault.