And if one argues that that is patently ridiculous (which it is) and that people do have responsibility for their actions, then whither do we draw the dividing line? Is god/religion (for they’re the same to me) 50% responsible? 20% responsible? And if you want to assign 100% responsibility to the puny human, well, then I guess we have free will, to follow the dictates of our culture, religion, whatever, or not, and it doesn’t hold up as much of an excuse. Saying “It’s ingrained, I didn’t think” is certainly not acceptable to me, nor is it to you, I’m betting.

re: justification. Of course justification is in hindsight, and it is a very good point that there would be no excuses sans allegations.
But the point I was trying to make is this- if the community I grow up in and live my life in in any way condones certain actions (say, wife beating), then I too am subliminally affected by this. I grow up and develop as a human being knowing that there will not be any repercussions if I beat my wife. In fact, because it is so ingrained, I probably do not even think about it when my character leans toward it. But when it is questioned, I have my texts as a justification. So the problem for me is that a sub-conscious knowledge of acceptance serves as a tacit sort of license to commit those actions.

Of course, this is not to take away all responsibility from the perpetrators of these actions. 2 people in the said community could have completely different actions in a given situation because of their persoanlity, individual outlook etc. I just feel a community’s (religion’s) condoning of some things make them easier to be done.

A slightly jumbled comment, but I really should try to work as well….

There is a clear distinction between faith and the blatent disregard of fact. True one cannot prove there is or is not a heaven in the same way that one cannot prove categorically the date the universe was created. However it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bishop Usher’s 4000 year old Earth hypothesis which seems to be often the basis of creationist thought is simply wrong. The idea of this being taught in schools appalls me.

Yet, I am happy for my children to receive religious education despite my athist beliefs because atheism is something you are not something you choose. I do not enjoy the nihilism that is the realisation that there is no grand plan, no scheme of things, the failing of the great logic of atheism is an admittance that when all is said and done there is no logic. We are the true embodiment of the epiphenominalist thesis - our consciousness representing nothing more than the hum of the machine. (Mmm Cartesian duality discussion anyone?!)

Ali is correct with his parallel between religion and politics, one which I originally alluded to in part both are figments of dogma designed to encompass our moral and social codes and responsibilities. The difference for me is that religion (the organised variety) seems to advocate it’s version of events as the ‘true and only representation’. Whereas I see politics as addressing problems and making representations as to how to try to fashion the answers. it’s only the politicians that claim to have the answers from their interpretation of the dogma the same as clerics do.

Left-wing politics tho’ is not a panacea, and should never seek to be, socialism is not cathartic, it isn’t trying to reduce people to drones it isn’t trying a ‘go back to bed your government/church/monarch/despot is in control’ despite what its detractors would have you believe. The same I think cannot be said of either right-wing politics nor religious dogmatism.

[Ali- the name is a rather nice contradiction which suits me and my background and what I became out of it. It was conferred at University and kind of stuck thereafter.]

Justification is justification, and tends to be done in hindsight. If it were not the Koran or the Bible or the Book of Mormon or Timothy Leary’s bio, it’d be something else. People do what they wish to do, and then look for justification after the fact, not rationale prior to engaging in the act. I’m fairly certain that anyone smacking his girl around didn’t have a lengthy mental debate on the Koranic precedent for the action before letting fly. It’s no different than a child, em>after getting caught, saying “Well, so-and-so does it,” or “So-and-so said it was okay.” Would the justification be made sans accusation by outsiders? I think not. People wouldn’t bother. You don’t need to have excuses ready for things people don’t ask about.

I did not say, nor imply, anyone here was balking at strictures. I was speaking generally. I know many people who prefer to describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious, having found little to inspire them in traditional religious organizations. I find it difficult to find sympathy for the chafing under the yoke, (be it religious or related to the -ism of the day), of those who feel the need to have a pastor for their sheeply selves. You asked for it, you got it, Toyota. Either you need to submit to your choice, or have the metaphysical fortitude to seek out what you need, or, not finding it, create it yourself.

In answer to your question, the comment was made to Rocky’s wish that religions would evolve, and guide their adherents. It doesn’t work that way. People evolve (or don’t), and drag the power matrix kicking and screaming with them, if they don’t destroy it entirely, because it will not be moved. For example, in America at least, few Catholics feel compelled to forgo chemical or barrier birth control methods, and yet the RC Church continues to reissue edicts against it. The people have evolved; the religion refuses to follow. People change more easily than institutions, always. However, that is not to imply that people change easily. Waiting around for people to change themselves to suit you is always a losing proposition. When you’re waiting for change from behemoth institutions, it’s even less likely. The Titanic doesn’t turn on a dime.