NationStates Jolt Archive

The government of Burma that is. The intolerant Buddhists that run Burma have accidentally leaked a document revealing their plans to eliminate Christianity in their country. With luck maybe they'll just sentence Christians to house arrest for several decades or so like they do with people who want democracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/wburma21.xml

Good for them!

More evidence that Buddhists can be just as intollerant as any other faith.

yeah...this goes against like...all of Buddhist teachings. No enlightenment for them soon. I dont even believe it to be honest. The Daily Telegraph is an overtly right wing authorortarian newspaper posing as a broadsheet while being almost as bad as the metro. Really, this woulld be the governement that do this, not Buddhists - it goes against:
-Everything to do with rightoesness (right intent, for example)
-Not converting or getting rid of other faiths to gain followers
-The Eightfold Path
-the Asokas.

Take off that cross / no Christians, please! / We're Buddhists now / all us Burmese - Burma Shave. :D

Take off that cross / no Christians, please! / We're Buddhists now / all us Burmese - Burma Shave. :D

Booooooooooooo

:D

Booooooooooooo

:D

Hey, it was harder than I thought to come up with one on the spur of the moment.

Good for them! That'll teach those intolerant Christians to go around being intolerant and setting people on fire and such!
etc.

I think Christians did their best work when they were persecuted. Once they became Mainstream and establishment they became prey to corruption and vice. A little persecution keeps the faithful on their toes, y'know?

Hey, it was harder than I thought to come up with one on the spur of the moment.

B+ for effort. You could do some extra credit with another one and raise your grade to an A.

Nobody on NSG is going to be seriously chanting "Death to t3h 3b1l b00d1ztz" any time soon.

Words of advice that could have saved countless lives: When someone tells you God told him to do things, RUN. NOW. Not later. Now.

Too bad the voters didn't listen eh?

This is kinda similar to pissing on Budda. It's like how Jesus taught tolerance and how God hates it when we kill people for reasons other than survival(if someone attacks me with a knife, someone's going to die and it's not going to be me), yet people used him as an excuse to kill.

Words of advice that could have saved countless lives: When someone tells you God told him to do things, RUN. NOW. Not later. Now.

This is kinda similar to pissing on Budda. It's like how Jesus taught tolerance and how God hates it when we kill people for reasons other than survival(if someone attacks me with a knife, someone's going to die and it's not going to be me), yet people used him as an excuse to kill.

Words of advice that could have saved countless lives: When someone tells you God told him to do things, RUN. NOW. Not later. Now.

Why doesn't God ever tell people to make me a milkshake?

Nobody on NSG is going to be seriously chanting "Death to t3h 3b1l b00d1ztz" any time soon.

Death to t3h 3b1l b00d1ztz !!!!!1!!!111

More evidence that military dictators can be just as intollerant as any other regime abusing faith.
Corrected.

yeah...this goes against like...all of Buddhist teachings.Do you know what sort of regime the SPDC is?! - I mean, if they gutted Christians in Buddhist temples, it'd still be waaaaaay down on the list of reasons for why there's nothing Buddhist about them. Or sane. Or human. It's quite possibly the most evil regime on the planet these days.

Well Myanmar has been known to be hostile towards christians for some time now. So it wouldn't be surprising to me.

The government of Burma that is. The intolerant Buddhists that run Burma have accidentally leaked a document revealing their plans to eliminate Christianity in their country. With luck maybe they'll just sentence Christians to house arrest for several decades or so like they do with people who want democracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/wburma21.xml

Oh noez?

Nobody on NSG is going to be seriously chanting "Death to t3h 3b1l b00d1ztz" any time soon.

There was a time when somebody ranting about muslims would be greeted with confusion by both left and right.....

Do you know what sort of regime the SPDC is?! - I mean, if they gutted Christians in Buddhist temples, it'd still be waaaaaay down on the list of reasons for why there's nothing Buddhist about them. Or sane. Or human. It's quite possibly the most evil regime on the planet these days.

Do they have oil? I'm sure Dear Leader would love to help the peace-loving people of Myanmar, especially if they have oil. No dawdling, though, Dear Leader's in office only until the third week of January, 2009, and there's still Iran to take care of and maybe Pakistan, and that Chavez fella down in Venezuela, well, somethin' outght to be done there, too.

Do they have oil? I'm sure Dear Leader would love to help the peace-loving people of Myanmar, especially if they have oil. No dawdling, though, Dear Leader's in office only until the third week of January, 2009, and there's still Iran to take care of and maybe Pakistan, and that Chavez fella down in Venezuela, well, somethin' outght to be done there, too.

They don't have oil, but IIRC, they had a gold rush recently. So I guess they have gold! Just not the black kind :(

They don't have oil, but IIRC, they had a gold rush recently. So I guess they have gold! Just not the black kind :(

Interestingly they also used chemical weapons in the last few years....Obviously the Karen are just not as cuddly as the average Iraqi and thus need no liberating. Being christian is not enough to overcome this, so it must be Jimmy Carter syndrome - the wrong kind of christian.

Interestingly they also used chemical weapons in the last few years....Obviously the Karen are just not as cuddly as the average Iraqi and thus need no liberating. Being christian is not enough to overcome this, so it must be Jimmy Carter syndrome - the wrong kind of christian.

orly? I never knew that. Its wonders why some things are not put into the news.. Hmm.

The government of Burma that is. The intolerant Buddhists that run Burma have accidentally leaked a document revealing their plans to eliminate Christianity in their country. With luck maybe they'll just sentence Christians to house arrest for several decades or so like they do with people who want democracy.Eliminating Christianity is a good thing. ;)

Take off that cross / no Christians, please! / We're Buddhists now / all us Burmese - Burma Shave. :D

As always, Farny, you're made of win.

As for the Buddhists, this disappoints me. Though I know it's foolish I like to think of Buddhism as more peaceful than other religions. :(

Eliminating Christianity is a good thing. ;)

Says who?

It's strange how people on this thread don't care about this, oh wait a second, thats not strange at all for this forum.

Says who?The intelligent part of humanity.

It's strange how people on this thread don't care about this, oh wait a second, thats not strange at all for this forum.
They do care. Maybe they just don't dislike what they read.

The intelligent part of humanity.

Are you saying intollerant, anti human rights thought police fascists are intelligent?

The intelligent part of humanity.

how's that?

Are you saying intollerant, anti human rights thought police fascists are intelligent?

It depends. Do you think the church is intelligent?

It depends. Do you think the church is intelligent?

I knew that was coming when I posted that :rolleyes: ;)

It depends. Do you think the church is intelligent?

you mean the building? :confused:

how's that?
Intelligent people view Christianity as a regrettable thing.

I knew that was coming when I posted that :rolleyes: ;)

:D

Someone was going to say it, I just got here first.

you mean the building? :confused:

No, I mean the institution.

Intelligent people view Christianity as a regrettable thing.
how would you know? did someone tell you?

No, I mean the institution.

oh, my faith has nothing to do with any "institution" so I wouldn't know.

yeah...this goes against like...all of Buddhist teachings. No enlightenment for them soon. I dont even believe it to be honest. The Daily Telegraph is an overtly right wing authorortarian newspaper posing as a broadsheet while being almost as bad as the metro. Really, this woulld be the governement that do this, not Buddhists - it goes against:
-Everything to do with rightoesness (right intent, for example)
-Not converting or getting rid of other faiths to gain followers
-The Eightfold Path
-the Asokas.

Wrong. Buddhism is just as blood thirsty as any other religion, its just that they have much better PR.

Buddhism has been a war-like religion since its inception. In fact, Buddhism was the first religion to ever justify a war in its own name (in the 300s BCE, when the Buddhist armies of Chandragupta waged a horrific crusade against the Greco-Bactrians in Northern India), and consistantly acted aggressively throughout Asian history.

Even today, consider the "Free Tibet" campaign, in essence, it is the campaign of an unelected theocrat (His Phonieness, the Dalai Lama) to annex Western China and institigate harsh religious law and introduce ethnocentric governance... and people in the West support this!!!

Remember folks, intolerance, bloody persecution, religious extremism, and tyranny are FINE as long as you oppress the right people!

*Sigh* Bigots these days. :rolleyes:

Burmese government = Fail

oh, my faith has nothing to do with any "institution" so I wouldn't know.

You don't go to church? Excellent, I wish more religious people would not go to church/temple/synagogues and actually have a faith not based on the word of the guy at the front but rather on their own study and reflections on the religion itself.

you mean the building? :confused:Indeed, the church is most definately more intelligent than the Church.

You don't go to church? Excellent, I wish more religious people would not go to church/temple/synagogues and actually have a faith not based on the word of the guy at the front but rather on their own study and reflections on the religion itself.

There is no one single church institution, she may go to a church which is not part of any family of churches, thus not being part of any institution.

Good for them!

Really? It's just replacing an imaginary friend with an imaginary 'friend-wheel'...ish, kinda thing.

There is no one single church institution, she may go to a church which is not part of any family of churches, thus not being part of any institution.

Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of two or more individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service.

If she goes to a church with one other person there then it is an institution. She said she is part of no institution, therefore she doesn't attend a church.

There is no one single church institution, she may go to a church which is not part of any family of churches, thus not being part of any institution.

I go to church, it belongs to a convention, it's autonomy is preserved, my church does not control anything beyond itself and nothing beyond our church controls us.

If she goes to a church with one other person there then it is an institution. She said she is part of no institution, therefore she doesn't attend a church.

Well I doubt she meant it that literally.

If she goes to a church with one other person there then it is an institution. She said she is part of no institution, therefore she doesn't attend a church.

I said the institution doesn't have anything to do with my faith.

I said the institution doesn't have anything to do with my faith.

You don't listen to the minister?

If so then I'm back to my original point about being glad that some religious people are thinking about their faith for themselves.

You don't listen to the minister?

If so then I'm back to my original point about being glad that some religious people are thinking about their faith for themselves.

I listen to the preacher in the same way I listen to the pundits on the radio, in all things I go check out everything for myself and make my own decision.

Really? It's just replacing an imaginary friend with an imaginary 'friend-wheel'...ish, kinda thing.

One down, less to go. :p

For reals, though, what they're doing is wrong. I just have a hard time being sympathetic.

orly? I never knew that. Its wonders why some things are not put into the news.. Hmm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,13373,1465052,00.html?=rss

Not as closed as N Korea but not easy to access, thus leading to a lack of reportage, which leads to little interest, which leads to less reportage. As no powerful states are too pushed what they do, they will doubtless continue on relatively undisturbed in what they've been doing for the last few decades.

Its interesting to note that despite the protestations of many that they are "for christ" and 'christian values' (whatever they might be) they seem to be very selective in which of their co-religonists they support. Reagan was vocal in his support of the head of Guatamalas junta as he was a 'christian gentleman' but seemed little pushed when this kind of thing occurred.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301826.html

Much like the reformation, it becomes hard to tell where the faith begins and the pragmatism ends, with the various "Princes" of the world.

Really? It's just replacing an imaginary friend with an imaginary 'friend-wheel'...ish, kinda thing.In reality it's probably more a case of the SPDC having wide control of the Buddhist hierarchy and the Christians mostly being tribes marked for extermination, such as the Karen.

And no, there's nothing desirable about fascist thought police torturing adults to death while kidnapping children and working them to death on building infrastructure for foreign capital. Because that's what the SPDC does. That is, when they're not testing their weapons programs on the tribes of south Burma, buying foreign surveilance to locate and exterminate the citizens they don't like, or rounding up hundreds of villagers at gunpoint to work them to death moving ancient temples so there's room for golf courses.

The SPDC is nothing more than a Nazi-like mafia, using country and people to generate personal wealth. There's not a reason in the world to think the primary motivation behind this newest bout of genocide is anything other than an attempt at stomping flat all possible opposition.

Even foreign reporters are hunted down and killed in Burma, should they stray from the few guided tours the SPDC sometimes offer.

And frankly, anyone who thinks it's a good idea to torture people to death because of the nature of their superstitions, deserves the exact same treatment themselves. Sure, Orthodox religious people, Christians included, are fucking annoying. But you don't hunt down and kill people in the most gruesome way possible just for being annoying. Not if you want to be considered human anyway.

Good on them, no one likes Christians.

Good for them!

Seconded.

I think Christianity will survive this fierce blow somehow. In any case *adds Burma to list of places to avoid*

The response to this thread sickens me. Since when is persecuting and planning to eradicate any religion, anywhere, a good thing?

I just hope that most of you guys are being sarcastic.

Much like the Islamic extremists, and the Christian extremists, these Buddhists are not truly Buddhist.

Much like the Islamic extremists, and the Christian extremists, these Buddhists are not truly Buddhist.

Who's to say that the extremists of each religion aren't the ones truly following the religion as intended?

Good on them, no one likes Christians.
Except everyone that doesn't judge XYZ million people based on religion.

The response to this thread sickens me. Since when is persecuting and planning to eradicate any religion, anywhere, a good thing?

I just hope that most of you guys are being sarcastic.

Have you checked out NSG?


Yeah, few of them are sarcastic.

I didn't know how many people on NSG actually love persecution and intollerance.

I didn't know how many people on NSG actually love persecution and intollerance.

Everyone loves persecution as long as it's directed to the folks they don't like.

Everyone loves persecution as long as it's directed to the folks they don't like.

Yeah, that's pretty much true. Did I ever tell you how happy I was when they started imprisoning mimes?

:p

So, did anyone bother to point out yet that the government of Burma is a socialist military junta, and not really Buddhist?

Really? It's just replacing an imaginary friend with an imaginary 'friend-wheel'...ish, kinda thing.

:D

Seriously, the "Buddhist" organization in question is "state-run", which should tell you who is really behind this ... the socialist military junta of a government.

Oh, how Buddhist of them...

You don't go to church? Excellent, I wish more religious people would not go to church/temple/synagogues

Why? Have you ever gone to church/temple/synagogue?

Seriously, the "Buddhist" organization in question is "state-run", which should tell you who is really behind this ... the socialist military junta of a government.You would describe the Burmese military junta as socialist? I wasn't aware that a group as batshit insane as they could coherrently adhere to an ideology.

Anyway, they're probably only persecuting the Christians because the stars told them to. So the Christians have only got their own God to blame for not keeping the heavens in a proper state of repair.

Much like the Islamic extremists, and the Christian extremists, these Buddhists are not truly Buddhist.

Oh goody goody goody! I was looking for the "no true scotsman" falacy to pop up here. An Islamic extremist is just as much a muslim as any other muslim. Just because you don't approve of their brand of Islam doesn't make them not a muslim. Every muslim who proclaims to be one gives power to the Bin Ladens who
claim to fight in the name of Islam.

Just like every christian who calls himself one gives power to the Fred Phelpses when they protest at military funerals, or the pope when he condemns millions of Africans to death by AIDS when speaking against contraceptives.

These Buddhist leaders are Buddhists because that is what they identify themselves as. They fight, persecute, and dominate in the name of Buddhism, and they rule in part because of their identification as such. Every public Buddhist gives them power. If you do not agree with them and want to fight against their policies (as I think everyone should), you should not identify yourself as a Buddhist. You can say you are inspired by the Buddha (as am I), inspired by Jesus (ditto), or Mohammed (not), but when you claim membership in a group - saying you are a Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim - you begin to become morally responsible for the horrors carried out in the name of your faith.

but when you claim membership in a group - saying you are a Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim - you begin to become morally responsible for the horrors carried out in the name of your faith.

Um, no. You are not responsible for something another individual does regardless of how similar you are to that individual.

Much like the Islamic extremists, and the Christian extremists, these Buddhists are not truly Buddhist.

Um, no. You are not responsible for something another individual does regardless of how similar you are to that individual.

It's not just a similarity, though. You claim group membership. By claiming membership, you give power to others who identify as Buddhist, Muslim, etc. If they USE that power, you are culpable, pure and simple. Just like you are culpable when you shop at WalMart for their corporate and environmental practices. Just like every self-identifying American is responsible for the mess in Iraq.

In fact, Buddhism was the first religion to ever justify a war in its own name (in the 300s BCE, when the Buddhist armies of Chandragupta waged a horrific crusade against the Greco-Bactrians in Northern India),

I'm reasonably sure they were beaten to it by Judaism. By around two thousand years.

I'm reasonably sure they were beaten to it by Judaism. By around two thousand years.

And now we reach the problem of Judaism. Would jewish aggression in the millennia BC be considered religiously motivated, or is it a simple act of a tribe/race/people fighting another tribe/race/people like happened all the time back then. The fact that this one particular tribe/race/people had a coherent revelatory belief common to all members may or may not constitute religious violence, I don't know. I just think it's a bit hasty to automatically conclude it is such.

I'd say it was religious violence. After all, the focus was "YHWH says you can have that land. Go clear it out, including the trees."

Good for them!

Nazi.

I think Christians did their best work when they were persecuted. Once they became Mainstream and establishment they became prey to corruption and vice. A little persecution keeps the faithful on their toes, y'know?


Speak for yourself, personally I don't need even a little persecution to keep me on my toes as you call it. I would be happy if we could all just learn to live together in peace without anyone trying to " FORCE " the other to believe there way.

It's not just a similarity, though. You claim group membership. By claiming membership, you give power to others who identify as Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
How?
If they USE that power, you are culpable, pure and simple.
How?
Just like you are culpable when you shop at WalMart for their corporate and environmental practices.
Apples to Oranges, when you shop at Wal-Mart you are directly giving money to the corporation. What your saying is akin to saying you support Wal-Mart's practices simply by living close to one of their stores.
Just like every self-identifying American is responsible for the mess in Iraq.

Another false analogy, America is a democracy and as such, the government is ruled by(or at least selected by) the people.

And now we reach the problem of Judaism. Would jewish aggression in the millennia BC be considered religiously motivated, or is it a simple act of a tribe/race/people fighting another tribe/race/people like happened all the time back then. The fact that this one particular tribe/race/people had a coherent revelatory belief common to all members may or may not constitute religious violence, I don't know. I just think it's a bit hasty to automatically conclude it is such.

Some of it was religious and some of it wasn't.
Stuff like this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_saul/slaughter_of_the_ammonites/1s11_07-08.html) wasn't religious because the only reason they're attacking these people is to get land.
Stuff like this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/massacre_of_the_midianites/nm31_01p25_16p31_02.html) is religious, because they're doing it cause God said so.

I'm going to assume you call yourself a Christian, but that's only because of my familiarity - this could go for any religion or ideology.

You call yourself a Christian. That gives you power. When you say "abortion is wrong because the bible says all life is sacred", you say so not on your own, but with the power of two billion christians from around the world. You say so even on behalf of people who may disagree with your particular view on abortion. If you wanted to speak on behalf only of those people who agree with you, you would say "I happen to think that abortion is wrong". As soon as you invoke the bible, you are trying to speak on an authority that is based on its believers.

Now, let's say that you claim that homosexuality should be illegal because of Leviticus - it's pretty clear on that point, abomination and all. Again, you want the power of speaking on behalf of all those people who hold Leviticus as part of their belief system, ie Christians and Jews. If you didn't, you would say homosexuality is icky, doesn't help reproduce the species, etc. But you don't want to do that. You want to have the legitimacy of the bible. The only reason the bible has legitimacy is because of the people who believe in it. The same way the only reason the pope has legitimacy is that there are a billion catholics out there.

Now, the problem with all of this is that you want the power to speak on behalf of all those people, to claim that "the bible says so". All those bible-believing Christians out there are your legitimacy so you don't have to justify your particular belief. But you don't want to share that power. You want to be able to say "the bible says this", but you don't want Fred Phelps to be able to speak on your behalf. I'm sorry, but there is no better word to call that attitude than hypocracy.


That is why I say that anyone who calls himself a Buddhist gives power to the Myanmar regime and their proposed purging of Christianity from the realm. It's the reason I chide muslims for the actions of Bin Laden. It's the reason I chide liberal christians for the actions of fundamentalists. Take away their power. Choose not to identify. If you talk about your beliefs, say what you believe, not your authority for believing.

You call yourself a Christian. That gives you power. When you say "abortion is wrong because the bible says all life is sacred", you say so not on your own, but with the power of two billion christians from around the world. You say so even on behalf of people who may disagree with your particular view on abortion. If you wanted to speak on behalf only of those people who agree with you, you would say "I happen to think that abortion is wrong". As soon as you invoke the bible, you are trying to speak on an authority that is based on its believers.
.

One problem. The followers of any given religion are not a horde of zombies walking around chanting "One of us...One of us". The are numerous different sects in any given religion and the people within those sects will disagree on many social, economic, theological, and philosophical issues. Example: say I'm a Jew, and I think that Moses never existed(a belief among some reform Jewish groups, I've heard), well there are many Jews who will disagree with me such as orthodox and Hasidic Jews.

yeah...this goes against like...all of Buddhist teachings.
Going against Christian teachings never stopped Christians, for example, from being bastards before.

Anyway, as in all cases of religion being used to justify brutality, this is not really about religion but political power. Christians in Burma are often involved in the pro-democracy movement.

One problem. The followers of any given religion are not a horde of zombies walking around chanting "One of us...One of us". The are numerous different sects in any given religion and the people within those sects will disagree on many social, economic, theological, and philosophical issues. Example: say I'm a Jew, and I think that Moses never existed(a belief among some reform Jewish group, I've heard), well there are many Jews who will disagree with me such as orthodox and Hasidic Jews. Then the Hasidic Jew may think it is customary for Jews to not shave their beards or the sides of their head, and the orthodox would disagree.

I'm sorry, but I kind of left that door open specifically to raise my next point - a little bit dishonest. I apologize.

So your identification with a specific sect allows you to renounce a claim on the existence of Moses. Great. So you are now no longer just a Jew, you are a (enter sect name here) Jew. What other points of interpretation, literalism, etc do you disagree with other Jews about? Which members of (sect name) Judaism do you disagree with? Do you have a subsect name for that? At what point do you give up on labels and just say what you believe? At what point do you give up your power of identification and make your existential claim based on your own reasons, not the authority of other believers whose beliefs may only slightly intersect with your own? There are two options here: you either give power to those with whom you disagree, or you give up the power to speak on their behalf by taking a narrower identity. You can't have it both ways without hypocracy.

My point is that the line should be drawn at the end of your nose. Believe what you believe, that's fine. But as soon as you take a label, you get the baggage, both good and bad.

Words of advice that could have saved countless lives: When someone tells you God told him to do things, RUN. NOW. Not later. Now.
Even if it's "I want to feed the poor (http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/index.htm)/stop this war (http://www.cpt.org/)/house the homeless (http://www.hfh.org/)/stand up for equal rights (http://www.trocaire.ie/) because God told me so"?

My point is that the line should be drawn at the end of your nose. Believe what you believe, that's fine. But as soon as you take a label, you get the baggage, both good and bad.

That is, if you want to make gross generalizations about certain religious groups.

Eliminating Christianity is a good thing. ;)
No matter how inhuman the method? I thought you were one of NS's self-declared noble human rights defenders?

They do care. Maybe they just don't dislike what they read.
Then they're bigots.

Intelligent people view Christianity as a regrettable thing.
Care to list and cite some such intelligent people, with published material?

Without Christianity there would be no humanism.

Even today, consider the "Free Tibet" campaign, in essence, it is the campaign of an unelected theocrat (His Phonieness, the Dalai Lama) to annex Western China and institigate harsh religious law and introduce ethnocentric governance... and people in the West support this!!!
China is as close as possible to being an atheist "theocracy" government and is far more harsh than the Dalai Lama could ever be. Tibet is a historical country, not a historical province of China.

How can you support China in this?

One down, less to go. :p

For reals, though, what they're doing is wrong. I just have a hard time being sympathetic.
Is that because you don't give a shit about human rights?

Good on them, no one likes Christians.
Possibly the most foolish statement of the thread, for extremely obvious reasons.

Seconded.
I hope the above posters are happy to be in the company of a racist 'wingnut' like you.

By claiming membership, you give power to others who identify as Buddhist, Muslim, etc. If they USE that power, you are culpable, pure and simple. Just like you are culpable when you shop at WalMart for their corporate and environmental practices. Just like every self-identifying American is responsible for the mess in Iraq.
How? If one doesn't give money or vocal support to pay for the atrocity, how are they responsible?

All Americans are responsible for the war in Iraq only because they have to pay taxes for it. Some Americans (Republican voters, war supporters) are more responsible than others.

It's the reason I chide liberal christians for the actions of fundamentalists. Take away their power. Choose not to identify. If you talk about your beliefs, say what you believe, not your authority for believing.
Then you get to be an atheist, thus complicit in the atrocities of the Chinese, the USSR and other delightful customers.

Then you get to be an atheist, thus complicit in the atrocities of the Chinese, the USSR and other delightful customers.

A few things here. 1) I specifically said that you should believe what you believe. Just because you live your life according to the teachings of Jesus does not mean that you must proclaim yourself to be a Christian. Just believe what you believe, don't take the power of identity, and don't give the power of identification to those who would commit attrocities in your name. 2) did the Chinese, USSR, etc use atheism as justification for their atrocities? If they didn't; if they legitimized their deeds on behalf of another ideology say, I don't know, communism, then what you said would not follow: the moral impetus would be on self-proclaimed communists. 3) if an authority were to use their identity as atheists to legitimize the persecution, torture, or harm of others, then it would, in fact, be the responsibility of any self-proclaimed atheist who does not believe in such things to denounce such acts, and to renounce self-labeling as an atheist.

That is, if you want to make gross generalizations about certain religious groups.

It has nothing to do with generalizations. These people use Christianity (Islam, Buddhism) as justification for their inhumanity; they are legitimized by everyone who claims the label of Christian (Muslim, Buddhist). If you don't want to be generalized DON'T TAKE THE GENERAL LABEL! Believe what you believe, but don't take the authority of others' belief as legitimacy. If you do, you give them the legitimacy to commit attrocity in your name.

Even if it's "I want to feed the poor (http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/index.htm)/stop this war (http://www.cpt.org/)/house the homeless (http://www.hfh.org/)/stand up for equal rights (http://www.trocaire.ie/) because God told me so"?

Actually, yes.

The moment they begin to think that they should do all those things BECAUSE GOD TOLD THEM SO and not for other, better reasons, they have let their morality become contingent on the arbitrary will of others.

If "God" (more precisely, whatever actual religious authorities they recognize) says that immoral actions are morally obligatory, they will go along with it.

We should feed the poor, stop the war, house the homeless, and stand up for equal rights not because God says so, but because those are the only behaviors compatible with respect for the worth and dignity of other human beings.

These people use Christianity (Islam, Buddhism) as justification for their inhumanity; they are legitimized by everyone who claims the label of Christian (Muslim, Buddhist).

That's plainly nonsensical.

Simply because people claim to speak for certain religions or ideologies doesn't mean that they actually do.

"Because I'm not a religious fundamentalist, I'm going to burn down these churches full of children."

That's plainly nonsensical.

Simply because people claim to speak for certain religions or ideologies doesn't mean that they actually do.

Who is to say whether they do or not? If you identify with their justification, you provide them with the power, whether you like what they do or not. People who cling to their identity labels moan about extremists giving them a bad name. There is an easy way to avoid that - don't claim the label. You can deny their legitimacy, but you must give up the power you wield by speaking on behalf of that identity. That's it.

There is an easy way to avoid that - don't claim the label.

Name a single descriptive term or phrase that hasn't been abused. Ever.

Actually, yes.
I'm glad that you think the world would be a better and safer place without the millions of people who devote their lives to religion-based charity. :rolleyes:

The moment they begin to think that they should do all those things BECAUSE GOD TOLD THEM SO and not for other, better reasons, they have let their morality become contingent on the arbitrary will of others.
Religious people see God's truth as the ultimate reason.

If "God" (more precisely, whatever actual religious authorities they recognize) says that immoral actions are morally obligatory, they will go along with it.

We should feed the poor, stop the war, house the homeless, and stand up for equal rights not because God says so, but because those are the only behaviors compatible with respect for the worth and dignity of other human beings.
Religious people usually see God's truth as unchanging. Basing morality on the collective conclusions of a group of western philosophers may be, in their eyes, as trivial as you believe God to be.

A descriptive term is fine. I am speaking specifically about identity. When I describe my beliefs to people, I will often describe my beliefs as "I take a generally western Taoist perspective - leaving the world free to unfold as it should", but I am also atheistic with naturalist, realist, and dualist emphases. Note, I never take a label.
Yes, you just take a number of labels.

A descriptive term is fine. I am speaking specifically about identity.

And a "descriptive term" necessarily supposes that you identify with its content.

Name a single descriptive term or phrase that hasn't been abused. Ever.

A descriptive term is fine. I am speaking specifically about identity. When I describe my beliefs to people, I will often describe my beliefs as "I take a generally western Taoist perspective - leaving the world free to unfold as it should", but I am also atheistic with naturalist, realist, and dualist emphases. Note, I never take a label. Calling myself an Atheist, or Taoist, or any other -ist is political. I would do so in order to take a claim of legitimacy beyond my own experience in the world. I don't. There may be other people who would chose to describe themselves similarly, but have distinctly different beliefs and attitudes than I. By refusing the labels, I draw a line saying "this is what I believe. No one speaks for me, and I speak for no one else." I give up the power to justify my actions with others' beliefs, and I give up the power of others to justify their actions with my beliefs.

I'm glad that you think the world would be a better and safer place without the millions of people who devote their lives to religion-based charity. :rolleyes:

I don't see how you drew this conclusion.

I don't think they should cease their charity work; I think they should do it for better reasons.

Religious people see God's truth as the ultimate reason.

So if "God's truth" were that gays should be murdered and women turned into slaves, that would be acceptable to them?

Great. So not only do many of them think I deserve to be tortured for eternity, but even their limited compassion is purely contingent on their deity commanding it. I have no value in and of myself; I just have whatever value God says I do.

(Thankfully, of course, plenty of religious people have surpassed such morally depraved perspectives.)

Religious people usually see God's truth as unchanging. Basing morality on the collective conclusions of a group of western philosophers may be, in their eyes, as trivial as you believe God to be.

Nobody says "right action is whatever western philosophers say it is."

I accept some of what certain Western philosophers say not because they happen to say it, but because I think it's true. Similarly, I accept some of what Jesus says because I think it's true - NOT because Jesus says it.

Yes, you just take a number of labels.

I think you have mistaken taking a label and being labeled. I described my beliefs, that is not taking a label. If others wish to call me something because of that, it is them, not me.

Furthermore, you have never responded to the central argument that our self-identification gives power to those who would use the legitimacy of that identification do undertake acts that we disagree with.

Furthermore, you have never responded to the central argument that our self-identification gives power to those who would use the legitimacy of that identification do undertake acts that we disagree with.

Only with regard to people utterly incapable of making distinctions.

And a "descriptive term" necessarily supposes that you identify with its content.

What semantic nonsense. Having a trait and identifying with a label most certainly are not the same thing.

What semantic nonsense. Having a trait and identifying with a label most certainly are not the same thing.

It would follow that I could call myself a Christian ("accepting of the teachings of Jesus Christ") or a communist, for that matter ("supportive of the collective ownership of the means of production and the egalitarian distribution of their product") without "identifying" with it.

Which kind of makes your whole position incoherent.

What semantic nonsense. Having a trait and identifying with a label most certainly are not the same thing.

Any adjective or descriptive term by definition is a label. Saying someone does not believe in a god, for instance, makes them an atheist. This is no different from them saying that they are Atheists. Similarly, anyone who follows the teachings of Christ is a Christian. This is no different from them saying that they are Christian.