Damned STUPID Priest yesterday . . .

[tackattack]

Nope, no intentions to change you mind, just want a perspective different from mine to look at and cogitate over. No one ever changes anyone's mind. They can affect their attitudes and supply new information, but I don't believe I'm telling you anything new.

Best to just track back and take a look.  The buddhist apparatus was on board with imperialist influence and critical of the new regime.  There was antipathy among the common folk toward monks due to their part in a tragic socio-economic state of affairs, and the fact that the type of buddhism prevalent in the region asserted that a persons inequality in life was a deserved and proper state of affairs gave ideological cover....for what was still, surrounding all of this, a despotic power grab by a fantastically horrid bunch of motherfuckers.  

The notion that an atheistic state was killing religious people because atheism isn't just inept..it's dangerous, because it occludes the actual causes of the tragedy and all but ensures a fertile ground for it to happen again...and that same antipathy and tragic state of affairs is growing, again..in combodia, as we speak.  

So I guess we may as well add that the the list of why theistic belief sucks donkey balls.  It makes people say stupid shit like that to potentially and actually tragic ends.  

I think I'll find the other thread on khmer rouge to finish that discussion. I'll look for it later



For clarity:
1. Religion makes people think that their worst impulses..or the worst impulse of some other, -is- the best judgement.

2. a predictable deranged asshole factory because of see 1

Nope. I give people the benefit of the doubt till they open their mouth to judge their intent and decency. I could agree that:
3. There is usually an inverse relation between their intensity and intentions that works against their decency  

I honestly don't think that you're being entirely honest with me or yourself..or both, here.  If I say the word "religious extremist" you probably don't think I'm referring to a moderate.  A specific type of religious nutter jumps to your mind.  You see them, I see them, we all see them.  If anyone;s going to bomb an abortion clinic or give a queer a curby..it's gonna be -that- guy..we think to ourselves.

I'm being perfectly honest with us both. Fair enough I understand what you mean by nutter and religious extremists, ur definitions are the same. I was just saying that I don't see someone with a hijab, burka or keffiyeh and assume they're a terrorist. I can assume they're of Arabic descent, but what they wear or the color of the skin doesn't tell me jack about their beliefs, intentions or motivations. Maybe they're just really modest or allergic to the sun?. Bottom line is I was trying to capture your input on it, not reword it for my benefit.
Let's try:
3. Religious nutters who take their book seriously are not normally decent people


4. A faith that eschews the value of this life in favor of the primacy of some next life (or no life).  
5. History of annihilating all life affirming faith
6. Currently dream of the apocalypse
7. More barbaric than any other faith
8. Has no choice but to promotes atrocity for atrocity so as not to be victimized. see 4,5 and 7

Yup, though I fear that you're going to end up focusing too much on a specific faith, I'm referring to theistic faith, as a whole....and I'm willing to do a little east v west split here because I have a whole different set of criticism for eastern religions, with some overlap where it applies.  

Because one of the items is a comparison of different faiths, isn't it reasonable for me to focus on specific faiths. Generally theistic faith, as a whole though is amenable.