Moderate vs. Extremist Religion

By Daniel Miessler on May 9th, 2009: Tagged as Atheism | Religion
  • http://brooksgarrett.com brooksgarrett

    I agree in part and disagree with part.

    I agree with you that fundamental radicalism (or in this case extremist religion) is harmful and should be derided much as you would slap the child eating poison because it looks like candy.

    I disagree with you that this situation is anything resembling a moderate stance in faith.

    A moderate stance is “We should pray the medicine works and place our faith in God.” This is acceptable. Science can not reliably explain why the same treatment will not work on two similar people with similar conditions. Thus the person is using faith to fill in the gaps. I see no harm in that.

    An extreme stance is “No medicine. God will handle it.” One of the most oft quoted verses from scripture is “God helps those who help themselves.” I could understand the argument, “No medicine. There is a .00928 % success rate and a 90% chance it will only decrease his life experience.” That is a valid argument based on promoting the greater good of the child.

    While I DO think the courts should uphold the parent's wishes (Damn the First Amendment!), I do think they should be ridiculed and ostracized throughout their lives for sacrificing their son in this manner.

  • Ben

    What is truly ironic here is that you seem to believe that “non-religious” people are somehow inherently more “sane”. As if all the wrongs in the world would disappear if only religion was removed. THAT certainly takes a lot of faith to believe, and is not a very sane idea.

    In reality ALL people operate out of their own sets of beliefs and assumptions. One difference is that religion and faith is consistent with its status as such. People who believe differently do themselves and others the disservice of deluding themselves into thinking that they are free of bias, belief, worldview, and even faith.

    Both sides are equivalent. Religious people and people of faith have produced many overwhelmingly positive advancements for humanity. Look historically at how many important advancements in science and medicine came from the same “insane” minds that you are criticizing with blanketed bias.

    When we see things that are wrong in the world we have to fight them with the only rational and successful means we have – addressing the behaviors themselves and not letting our prejudice blind us. Evil and wrong in the world come from all groups of people and walks of life, it is absurd to claim otherwise. The more you blame a group you disagree with as a whole the more you become part of the problem by spreading prejudice rather than actually helping matters any.

    Secular scientists, doctors, generals, politicians, and civilians do terrible things every single day. You protect and condone them by working to make the issue about religion. But I guess that prejudice and bias is part of YOUR belief system. At least be mature enough to not let your beliefs and faiths muddy the waters and distort the real problems at hand.

  • http://brooksgarrett.com brooksgarrett

    While a well made point it is rendered invalid.

    One person with the belief that he needs to kill everyone of different beliefs is a kook and can be controlled.

    What do you do when 1 Billion people all share this same belief “consistently”?

  • icepyro

    You set her up as a straw man. In fact to claim she is a moderate is rather humorous to me. Also, Christianity is not a single religion. There are many extremist Christians. David Koresh was a Christian. Was he extreme? He was very much so. Is this lady an extremist? I would claim so.
    What makes an extremist Christian? I think anytime you put your 'faith' above common sense, good reason, and in some cases even above the Word of God that you claim to worship in the first place, you are on a dangerous path.

    We could argue what defines common sense and good reason when it comes to religion until the day we die because those things are somewhat subjective to different cultures, beliefs, etc. To put yourself above your own beliefs is something a bit more tangible.
    Is there a passage that shows people should ignore medicine and not help the sick? No. Is there passages in the Bible that shows people should help the sick? Yes. You would say if this person had her way she would implement policy to keep others from using medicine. I would say with that same certainty that she has cough medicine or vitamins in her medicine cabinets.

  • Steve

    The incredible hypocrisy is that the some Christians will let this woman allow a child die in the name of “supporting her right to her beliefs” but then venomently oppose a woman who chooses to give up an unborn child.

    The first amendment gives freedom of religion and religious practices, but should not trump the sanctity of life or the rights of another, even their own child. Blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witness has been a great example of this.

    A further removed example of this, but illuminating the slippery slope of a unchecked “freedom of religion” rules with no boundaries or limits would justify the moral police that locked the young girls in the burning school preventing firefighters and fathers from saving the girls from a excruciating death because they were “not properly covered” to be seen and therefore rescued.

    The inquisition, execution of heretics and supposed witches, persecution of scientists the contradicied the church's ignorant beliefs, where does the lines stop on the slippery slope of “freedom of religion”

    Simply unbelievable and inexcusable in a civilized world and reminisced of the dark ages.

  • Steve

    The incredible hypocrisy is that the some Christians will let this woman allow a child die in the name of “supporting her right to her beliefs” but then venomently oppose a woman who chooses to give up an unborn child.

    The first amendment gives freedom of religion and religious practices, but should not trump the sanctity of life or the rights of another, even their own child. Blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witness has been a great example of this.

    A further removed example of this, but illuminating the slippery slope of a unchecked “freedom of religion” rules with no boundaries or limits would justify the moral police that locked the young girls in the burning school preventing firefighters and fathers from saving the girls from a excruciating death because they were “not properly covered” to be seen and therefore rescued.

    The inquisition, execution of heretics and supposed witches, persecution of scientists the contradicied the church's ignorant beliefs, where does the lines stop on the slippery slope of “freedom of religion”

    Simply unbelievable and inexcusable in a civilized world and reminisced of the dark ages.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KHHXAEEDVDRCJGAMR2WZAQNN3A Gomee Zheng

    so much attention to the athletes,

    singers and actresses who deserve recognition, but it’s nice

    to see a balance. Thank you

    http://www.nfl2you.com


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs