The most dangerous religion in the world needs to be stamped out and now!
 

The most dangerous religion in the world has it all - terrorism, fanaticism, you name it, they are completely crazy and it must be stopped now. I'd jump into it, but I'm tired today, so I'll let this article do the talking for me:

-S



Imagine the media reaction if a prominent American Christian leader condoned vandalism at abortion clinics. Now imagine the reaction if he went beyond condoning vandalism and agreed to appear as a witness for the defense at the trial of those vandals.

Then imagine what would happen if he decided to export his religiously motivated crusade to another country.

Well, that’s exactly what just happened, except the religion wasn’t Christianity—it was environmentalism.

Last October, a group of Greenpeace members climbed a chimney at a power plant in Kent, England, and started to paint the words “Gordon Bin It.” The “Gordon” referred to was Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the “it” was a plan to build new coal-fired power plants at the site.

The group argued that they had a “lawful excuse” for their actions: They were trying to prevent even greater damage like “flooding from rising sea levels and damage to species” from man-made global warming.

They were charged with vandalism, and at the trial the star witness for the defense was James Hansen of NASA. That’s right, NASA, an agency of the United States government.

Twenty years ago, Hansen first sounded the alarm over man-made global warming. And as time has passed, his rhetoric has escalated. In June, he called for the CEOs of fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for “crimes against humanity and nature.”

These so-called crimes included spreading doubt about man-made global warming. In other words, disagreeing with Hansen.

At the trial, Hansen said that “somebody needs to stand up and take a leadership role” in the fight against global warming.

Avoiding “disintegration of the ice sheets [and minimizing] species extinction” requires “immediate action” he said—action that included getting rid of coal-firing plants like the one vandalized.

Hansen’s words apparently did the trick because the jury acquitted all six defendants.

Now, reasonable people can differ over the reality of man-made global warming, but it is difficult to see how what happened in Kent met the requirements of a “lawful excuse.” That standard, as the judge told the jurors, requires an “immediate need to protect property belonging to another.” Even the most enthusiastic proponents of man-made global warming acknowledge that their most dire scenarios are decades, if not centuries, away.

What happened in England is further proof of what author Michael Crichton meant when he called modern environmentalism “one of the most powerful religions in the Western World”—a religion that divides the world between “sinner” or “saved,” the “side of salvation” or the “side of doom.”

As if to confirm Crichton’s point, on the same day the Greenpeace members were acquitted, an English city council voted to impose “hefty fines” on people for using the wrong recycling bins.

So what we have here is an appeal to a “higher law”—made by a U.S. government official no less—calling for an inquisition of sorts, and zealous punishment of even the tiniest infraction.

And the media dares to call Christians “fanatics”?

Reasonable people can disagree about global warming or the role of religion in public life. But there’s no excuse—lawful or otherwise—for double standards. Especially with the newest of all religions, environmentalism.http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=9402

The most dangerous religion is having none.
The second most dangerous religion is making money one.

People with no religion cannot stand on any principle. And people with religion who are too afraid to stand on their principle are not religious people.

People with money think they are religion unto themselves.

That is what I call dangerous.

My 2 cents

You have a point, but you're missing the bigger picture.

If I weren't a Christian, money would be my religion. Everything depends on it. As long as competition is free and the exchange of money that goes with it is paramount. As long as trade is free and the people are adequately represented there is only so much damage that wealthy elite can do.

If you believe that religions are less dangerous than money, I've got some Indulgences I'd like to sell you.;)

All hype, no substance. It sounds like it came from the back of a chuch guidebook. The most dangerous religion is the one whose members try to force others to their way of thinking. This includes Atheists and Communists (both of whom I've had serious running discussions with, to my everlasting delight and regret), but it also includes Christians. It has been argued that more people have been killed in the name of one God or another than for any other cause. I don't know if that's true, but the evidence is strong enough to make a case.

You say people with no religion cannot stand on any principle. That is a nice catch-phrase, but I challenge you to prove it true. I have very strong principles, and they've mostly come about since I lost my religion. I'm not an athiest, but I am a skeptic, a doubter, and a questioner. And I question the principles of anyone who can preach with as much conviction as you just did.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil, but rather the love of money. I'll agree with you that far. Money is like power; it does seem to corrupt.

But what I call dangerous is anyone who is so convinced they're right that even the hint of being wrong can turn them violent. This is where religious wars come from, and that's what I call just plain wrong.

Religions are actually grand and lofty in ideals.

Religious followers, that's another story.

Oh, and I didn't mean to get off-topic. Subman1, I agree, fair is fair and vandalism is vandalism. Period.

Are they?

I cover Sailor Steve's six.

The claim that "no religion" equals "no principles" is hilarious. As one very strong example, I refer people to studying Confuzianism. It's social order strongly depends on principles and morals, but a religion it is certainly not.

Other examples come to mind, too.

Agreed. It also depends on how you define religion. If religion is defined with the established god based religions, I strongly disagree. Religion is an ideology, just like communism, capitalism, social darwinism and humanism are ideologies you either believe in or not.

I consider myself an enlightend humanist. I do not believe in god, but in the good in ppl. I have very strong believes in morale and social behaviour. I do consider old fashioned religion dangrous. Not because of the values behind it, I respect these and share most of them, but because religion tends to make ppl blind and switch of their brains, just as any ideology does that is embraced too tightly. Ideologies are a safe heaven for those that do not want to be burdened with the contradicting realities of life, but prefer some clear guidelines how to act in the world.

That said, I yet have to find a christian who lives to the principles of Jesus Christ. Unluckily most folks I met and talked about it follow the rather hateful old testament. Eye for an eye and all this nonsense that causes most of the worlds evil.

Ironically, Castout you appear display some of the very characteristics that make some people with a religon (theistic or secular) very dangerous. Besides some of your points don't make much sense.

Steve, I agree with much of what you say; Its a lack of moral uncertainty on the part of the follower that is dangerous; the belief in absolute truth or right without at any point questioning their belief system or contemplating the real posibility that they may be wrong, even when elements of their own philosophy sometimes contradict their actions; for example every major religon exhorts its followers not to kill yet this has not prevented countless people being killed in the name of those same religons.

This kind of thinking can be seen in the medieval Christian crusader, in the Islamic suicide bomber, in the Stalinist Commissar or the Nazi Einsatzgruppen to give just a few examples.

BTW Subman, nice to see you using a nice unbiased source for that article. :nope:

I think saying that environmentalism is the most dangerous religon in the world is taking the argument a tad too far, what Greenpeace has done on this occasion is pretty small fry. I don't doubt that there are extremists but how many people have Greenpeace killed so far?

Nuts.

I usually do not react on any political/religion threads but this time I have to pipe in.
Your statement is offensive and borderline stupid.
Besides the fact that you just offended me by indirectly calling me a "person without principle" I disagree with you because WHO ARE YOU to make such a bold statement?
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

@Steve I agree with a vast majority of what you said.

umm..yeah...whatever makes you feel better

Thats a load of horse manure. Jezzus you guys are nuts. Always picking on the athiest. Not all athiest practic values. Not all religious groups practice values either. Some people practice it and others don't. Has nothing to do with religion. Has to do with people. Thats all people make it happen or not. Not ghost, goblin, vampire, deities etc make values for us. Just plan old people aka mortals.:nope:

Ehhh...Castout? :rolleyes: