Ban All Abrahamic Religions.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by blazefortwenty, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    This is why some figured out on page 2 this thread is not the best place to properly discuss such a topic :p
  2. Cliff Unicorn

    Cliff Unicorn Well-Known Member

    Can I ask did you make it yourself?
  3. Ged

    Ged Rhetorical Juvenile.

    Yes all my own pseudo-profundity,

    Actually just trolling.

    I'm a moron.
    1 person likes this.
  4. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Jesus loves you :grouphug:
    1 person likes this.
  5. Cliff Unicorn

    Cliff Unicorn Well-Known Member

    Trolling? No, I don't think so omg!
    You nailed it imo :D Thanks man

    2 people like this.
  6. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    I agree, but despite the problems of taking the OP seriously, (s)he does illustate examples of faulty logic that might be useful to understand. And since this thread is already underway, I'll continue here to discuss them here. The OP illustrates a blatant form of the "some are, therefore all are' fallacy that we've seen in action on other threads in the Politics forum, especially from Six-eyed Shaman.(Antifa is "leftist", Antifa is violent. Therefore Leftists (including moderate liberals) are somehow associated with violence.) Here, the pattern is pervasive: This Abrahamic religious group did something bad at some stage in history, some other Abrahamic group did something else bad at another. Therefore, they're all bad so lets ban them all. No mention of the good religious groups have done in building hospitals or other forms of organized altruism. No mention of the fact that many Abrahamic religious groups have histories of opposing violence: e.g., the Quakers, and were not involved in the violent activities: e.g., Disciples of Christ, UCC, Methodists, etc. When bad atheists are brought up, we get tortured arguments that religion was somehow responsible.

    Illustrating this pattern is the OP’s invoking of circumcision as a reason for banning Abrahamic religion. A ban on all Abrahamic religion for this reason is obviously overbroad, since a majority of Abrahamics don’t endorse the procedure, although some individuals may do it for medical or other non-religious reasons. Except for Coptic Christianity, Christianity, the largest Abrahamic faith, does not require circumcision. Male circumcision is a religious practice of Jews and Muslims. For Jews, it was a way (possibly borrowed from ancient Egypt) of marking off the children of Israel as distinctive and a sign of their covenant with YHWH. For Muslims, there is no mention of it in the Qur'an, but it is prescribed in the Hadeeth and a rite of entry into the Muslim community. "Female circumcision", or cliterodectomy, otherwise known as female genital mutilation, is a custom of particular Muslim groups in Africa (and some traditional African religions, as well) and has neither medical nor religious grounding.

    Many non-Jews and non-Muslims, including atheists practice circumcision for medical reasons. It has been shown to have certain health benefits, such as reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and HIV transmission in males. But medical opinion is divided over whether or not these benefits outweigh the risks and the problem of inflicting the irreversible procedure on infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics came out definitively in favor of the procedure for infants, saying "There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision," I realize that Intact America has made opposition to circumcision into a cause and considers the procedure a human rights violation. This controversy like the ones over vaccination and fluoridation of water, has little to do with religion, except to show that there is a body of medical opinion that favors the procedure quite apart from religious beliefs. Those who want to ban Judaism and Islam because of this might consider banning medical science as well. Wouldn't it be more efficient just to ban circumcision?
  7. Saul50

    Saul50 Member

    I am agnostic, that is, I have no religion, but I disagree with the banishment of all the Abrahamic religions, because it would be an act of intolerance against more than half of the world population. I am in favor, however, of combating all kinds of religious fundamentalism. By the way, the author of the initial post did not refer to the intolerance practiced by another Christian faith: the various currents of Protestantism.
  8. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    The intellectual limitations of our OP are obvious, but the issue raised here may be worth exploring further. I think it would be inappropriate to do so on this site, so i'll open a new thread in the Atheist section of the Philosophy and Religion Forum entitled "Is Teaching Religion to Children a Form of Child Abuse?"
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    I am against the banning of any legitimate religion, however I do think that those religions that promote belief systems that are contrary to facts, or that rely solely on unfounded acts of faith do damage to the social and scientific norms of today's civilizations as they promote non rational thinking.

    Having said that I also think that belief systems that are contrary to facts and those that rely solely on unfounded acts of faith are necessary at a certain level of individual and societal development, and I recognize the occasional necessity of non rational thought.

    The problem seems to me to be not that these types of religions exist, but that civilization in general does not recognize the need for these religions, and further, and more importantly, does not recognize that there comes a time when all individuals and societies need to outgrow these very religions and move on to a more inclusive understanding of the universe, just as we have abandoned our beliefs in fairies, magic, mythic beings, and multiple Gods.
    But, again, at the same time acknowledging that all individuals in general pass through phases of belief in each of those areas as they grow from childhood into adults.
    1 person likes this.
  10. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    YUP, groups, nations, religions, etc. all go through the same "growing and maturing" patterns as individuals do.

    stuff is reflected/repeated across myriad levels of existence....
  11. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake Hip Forums Supporter

    2 points that strike me after reading that. First, if we were going to ban religions because in the past they some did bad things, shouldn't we also ban other institutions that have done the same? So let's ban the British and American states for a start......... where would it end?

    Second, FGM isn't only an African thing.Iraqi Kurdistan for instance has one of the highest rates in the world (72% in 2010, 50% in 2016), and it's done in many other countries.
  12. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam Senior Member

    I think you'd have to show that the British and American states are a "mental disease", that is what I took away as the premise of the OP and which encapsulates more than just bad things they did in the past.
  13. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake Hip Forums Supporter

    Maybe it's just me, but neither are looking that sane at the moment.

    Nationalism in general could easily look like a form of aberrated behaviour.

Share This Page