Here’s a definition from the dictionary:
“Confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.”
Usually, the term refers to people who lecture others about morals or faith, but it applies equally to politics, choice of automobile models, or even physical fitness and food choices. In fact, just about any subject that is dominated by opinion rather than fact will have its self righteous advocates. Even that distinction is probably too narrow, come to think of it. Self righteousness is often accompanied by complete ignorance of facts or logic.
Humans seem to have this “need” to impose their views on others, either through persuasion or, sadly, often by force. The Crusades and the Inquisition are examples of the terrible results of self righteousness from the distant past. Religious belief is, by its very nature, self righteous. The followers of every single one of them believe that theirs is the only “right” one, and that everyone else is in a handbasket headed for you-know-where.
As the definition above notes, self righteousness is characterized by intolerance. One need only read the Bible or the Koran to be inundated with lurid and gory descriptions of the fate awaiting nonbelievers. This is reflected in the actions of some of the truly devout believers, who can be driven to commit crimes in the passion of their self righteousness.
Others attempt to use their influence to impose their beliefs on everyone else through political action. Without self righteousness, the issues of contraception, first trimester abortion, stem cell research and same-sex marriage would not even be discussed in our politics.
The opposite of self righteousness is best articulated in the expression, “Live and let live.” The underlying principle here is tolerance: I can hold whatever beliefs I wish on issues of morality or faith, but what others do is none of my concern as long as it does not harm me. If I am a devout Bible-reading Christian, I am not harmed by the married gay couple who live next door. It does not threaten my conventional heterosexual marriage in any way. But the self righteous deny this obvious fact. When asked for a reason, they quote the Scripture.
Islamist terrorists have carried self righteousness to the ultimate extreme, deliberately murdering innocent people whose only “crime” is unbelief in the Koran. But Christian fundamentalists aren’t much better, actively promoting conflict in the Middle East in hopes of hastening the End Times, of Armageddon and the apocalypse. Islam has similar teachings. Self righteousness, then, has within it, the seeds of our destruction.
I do not know what can be done about this unfortunate, but all too human trait, but we had better make an effort to outgrow it, or at least control it if we wish to survive as a species.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 109
Sigh. I can't discuss Self Righteousness after watching the C-SPAN self-righteous party tonight. I'm so disgusted, but I have one thing to say. I am not John McCain's friend and I never want to hear him address me that way again. The three hundred times tonight were enough.
"But Christian fundamentalists aren’t much better . . ." - And I think the message we received tonight is, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
Can you tell I'm fired up?
I'm disgusted with C-SPAN, and with Obama for participating in this circus.
But (sigh) he is just a politician after all...preferable to John-boy, but he still puts his pants on one leg at a time.
Now that I have that out of my system ...
I have been having some long talks with myself (and my fictional friend) about the kinds of status, security, belonging, even base safety needs that may exhibit as tight-armed (or other parts of the anatomy) righteousness. People talk about needing to fight for our freedoms, but we push those freedoms right out of our homes and neighborhoods and public places. What mainstream America really seems to want is our own straight and narrow fiefdom so we never have to worry because everyone fits right in to where we belong. We rant and expect the government to make it all right with laws and enforcements, small government without taxation of course. We want the schools to be injectors of morality, somehow fitting the knowledge necessary for high-paying jobs into squeezed-smaller minds. We want those who might threaten in their angry poverty or social confusion or misfit unpredictability to be thrown away. I think I'm getting too wound up here. Thanks for the soapbox.
Peace,
libramoon
Great article........
The only flaw I see, however, is the word "righteousness."
What is "righteousness"??
What is yours or anyone else's concept of "righteousness" based on??
The Bible?? The Koran?? What the majority says??
Even by the definition that you have supplied above,
the true meaning and origin of the word remains obscure.
If each person thinks and acts in a way that is "righteous" in their own eyes,
what standard can we use to recognize "righteousness"
(let alone, "self-righteousness")??
lea...that's the nice thing about the Bible. You can find whatever message you want in there somewhere. There are LOTS of places in the Bible that promote intolerance, which is a close kin to self righteousness. I don't doubt that there is also a quote in there somewhere that criticizes self righteousness. It always amazes me that anybody who reads the Bible can figure out what to believe. Do I believe Leviticus on homosexuality? Then along with opposing gay marriage, I should be seeking the death penalty for all gays.
Just one example. I have been told by believers that homosexuality is a sin, but that they "interpret" the statement on putting them to death. How do you know when to take the Bible literally and when to "interpret" (i.e, ignore) what it says?
Um, Sherlock, religions are not selfs. And you declaring that belief in an all powerful being that detests self righteousness, is self righteousness, is about as silly a thing as a man could ever think. You don't get it, but that don't mean it ain't there to get . . .
. . . unless one is so self righteous that they simply assume that what they don't believe true, cannot be true, by default.
Sp a person who is self righteous believes this about himself. Not exactly a modest belief.
Isn't that the same place where prohibitions are placed against shellfish and pork? Jon Stewart (that great religious leader) explained it all as dietary restrictions: no eating of pork or _______.
Religions, by their very nature, induce self righteousness in their believers.
You got nothin', judger of billions. Nothin'.
The definition you supplied in your comment obviously connects the meaning or inference of the word "righteousness" to religion or, more specifically, a belief in God.
I can't help but wax philosophically and ask: "Without a corresponding belief in the reality and exisence of God, can "righteousness" (Or "self-righteousness") be properly defined, or can it even be a legitimate concept, for that matter??"
Is it OK to be confident of your own views and thus intolerant of those not up to your standards when the situations are just the flat out the truth ? Is there not room for higher morals to be promoted without being called smug ?
You judge billions, based on little images in your head, that you imagine (and speak of) as if really people; Horrifically generalized, dehumanized, stereotyped, little people, that you judge as if a god seeing ultimate reality. . . and then speak of others self righteousness!! Amazing.
I think asking the kids to simply say, "Great dinner," instead of placing stickers on the dining room table is bitchy at worst, but justified and probably necessary.
Is it OK to be confident of your own views and thus intolerant of those not up to your standards when the situations are just the flat out the truth ? Is there not room for higher morals to be promoted without being called smug ? I think it is not only possible to be confident and point out the truth, it is necessary.
"I have always thought righteousness was based on religion."
Well, that is an interesting way to put it . . . but not very meaningful. Perhaps you meant 'self-righteousness' . . . ?
And if a person said this; "I have always thought that niggras was shiftless and lazy." Why is that any different than what you are doing to religious folk, when you make generalizations, and presumptions about their natures? Why weren't the Nazis, since they were so confident about the matter of theose people harming their society, correct for persecuting Jews?
I know one can "slip away" from this point I make, by saying those folks DID bad things, but I say, slandering those in the groups I mentioned LED to people not hesitating to do those bad things to them. Here you are, repeating the worst example you can think of to make your case. And ascribing it to a particular aspect of the people you speak of. Another, will see that, and count it as more evidence, and perhaps do something similar, and others will see that, and start to believe its obvious . . . that "everybody knows" that religion makes people mean and dangerous. Not at all unlike what happened in the deep South, or Germany, once upon a time.
(And, yes, they were real sure too . . . real sure.)
I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic, or an unbeliever.
--Daniel Boorstin
Self-righteousness, in my opinion, isn't about self so much as it is about control of others or, more importantly, feeling better about oneself by "making" others less. It takes a secure person to concern themselves with their own failings without constantly pointing out the failings of others. Everyone has an image of what they want the world to be. As soon as we decide we're qualified to tell others what they're doing wrong, we start on a slippery slope to hatred and judging. Everything from as big as what God one should embrace to as small as what is or isn't an acceptable article or comment.
It is NOT limited to religious views. Vegans can be self-righteous. PETA folks can be self-righteous. Atheists can be self-righteous. Both liberals and conservatives can be self-righteous. Nursing advocates can be self-righteous. Patriots can be self-righteous.
Truth to tell, the most important trait, in my opinion, of a mature individual is tolerance (and I'll hunt you all down like dogs until you practice it, no wait!). We'll always be different, but we won't have peace until we stop caring about the differences and focus on what makes us the same.
You might want to calm down. You'll hurt yourself.
(And the nice part of THAT would be that you deniers would not have to listen to him.)
You are, as I said before, confusing the message with the messenger. If he lives in a frigging CASTLE and drives Hummers, it doesn't change the validity of his message.
In fact, you can't even call him self righteous! He isn't claiming that HE is holier than thou.
He is just saying that, as a species, we have a problem. You can disagree with him, but I don't see how you can call him self righteous
The definition of righteousness that I supplied was from Wikipedia, and as I said, "for what it's worth." As I said in the article, I think people can be self-righteous about lots of things. I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I'll take a shot: You are claiming that righteousness (or self-righteousness) implies some "truth" to be righteous about, and without God there can be no "truth" so there can be no righteousness or self righteousness.
Self righteousness has nothing to do with reality. It is a condition (disease?) of the mind.
It doesn't require "truth." But maybe I misunderstood you...
And I agree with you that self righteousness is about control of others.
That's one of the points that I made in the article.
I can't help but find it hilarious that you accuse me of self righteousness for criticizing the human trait of self righteousness.
"Geez, if he really believes in it, he should live in a tent and ride a bicycle for transportation!"
No but does he really need 21 rooms? How about 4? Or even 10. He talks about how he's been leading the charge on Global Warming for 20-30 years and yet in that whole time he didn't look at one electrical bill and go HOLY CRAP I'm using way too much electricity. Instead it's only after someone else see's his bill that he makes changes.
He could probably have first class all to himself for close to what having a private jet cost.
And when has he debated the issue? If he is so sure in his belief debate it and smack down the doubters but he doesn't
Oh yea lastly I take issue that he supports buying snake oil I mean carbon (guilt) credits and guess who's set to make a mint off it. And Pelosi is guilty to of supporting something she stands to make loads off of when she forces it on everyone. Sounds like conflicts of intrest to me.
I have no idea about debates. Has anyone offered to debate him?
Re carbon credits, I have read both good and bad things about them. The alternative is arbitrary limits, and they are vehemently opposed by industry. So the credits idea was floated as a compromise. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or a bad one, but if hard limits are unattainable, are credits better than nothing?
I think that version has clouded the more important version by making people think they are "unworthy" of considering themselves honorable, ethical, intelligent, or even pretty. We've been conditioned to think it is wrong to claim our assets and character - but acceptable to say, "I'm a good Christian," which implies it, whether earned or not.
I think some people are morally and intellectually superior to others. They deserve to be recognized, by others and by themselves.
Put 'em all on another barren planet and let 'em kill each other off.
--
Something else we also need to think about, but I haven't had time to write about it yet, is that our mores are based on what we expect and what we are willing to accept from others. We've accepted and expected the worst from this administration for eight years now, which is long enough for that to have filtered through our society and become "normal behavior". If we aren't extremely vocal and vigilant in saying no more, we're doomed as a society. All the talk in the world about taking prayer out of schools, the ten commandments off courthouse lawns, etc. won't make any difference if the people don't start living what is behind it instead of trying to preach it to those who do.
No, I haven't bought any carbon credits, and if Gore has, it must be because he thinks the company will be successful. Remember this: He is not in government. He has no authority to make any decisions about how or if we tackle global warming. But if he really believes that it IS a problem and that we ARE going to tackle it, why shouldn't he make an investment in a company that will profit from it?
It's the same double standard that you try to apply to his house and his world travel. He is not allowed to have the comforts that you (and I) do if he sees human consumption and the resultant pollution as a problem. It simply doesn't follow, and I don't understand why you and Charles have this notion? Think about this: Suppose that he IS just in this thing for the money. If his message is correct...so what?
But if you are going to hold Gore to such a standard and impugn his motives, then what do you say about the corporations that have funded (bribed?) some scientists to debunk global warming because they don't want the added costs associated with cleaning up their act? Have you read about them? Lots of people have oars in the water on both sides in this, micky.
As Ruth says, you appear to be reading only one side of the story. The VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists support Gore's position. Or rather, I should say, that consensus is what has prompted Gore to address the problem. Did you know that his interest in the environment and pollution goes back to his earliest days in the Senate? He is no newbie on this issue.
And then, you made the eminently sensible post about God, and our inherent knowledge about good and evil.
As I said, you amaze me. What a person of contradictions you are, micky.
Debra,
Sounds like a good solution to me. Even better than the one that I proposed in an article last year. Here is the link.
An Alabama judge, Ashley McKathan, who has worn a robe to court embroidered with the ten commandments, dropped to his knees and prayed in court. He told the 100 or so in the court room to join hands and pray with him.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=6328383
What is it with these southern judges? Remember Ray Moore? He was the one who put a big rock with the Ten Commandments carved on it in his courthouse. He is no longer a judge...I don't remember if his exit was voluntary or not, and the last I heard he was running for political office. Maybe that's what this character has in mind too.
Hmm . . .
Someone once accused me of intolerance when I wrote an article blasting religious intolerance. My response was...yup, guilty as charged. I am intolerant of intolerance.
So if you are accusing me of self righeousness in criticizing self righteousness...
I am comfortable being critical of self righteousness. Even if I am self righteous about it.
You said... Others attempt to use their influence to impose their beliefs on everyone else through political action.
Then you said...Without self righteousness, the issues of contraception, first trimester abortion, stem cell research and same-sex marriage would not even be discussed in our politics.
This is your opinion, and makes me wonder if you're not one of the "others" you mentioned in the previous sentence, attempting to use your influence to impose your beliefs.
We're all different, and have different "must haves" and "cannot stands" - whether we're talking about marrying or selecting a president. Some things are real deal breakers. And I daresay that you cannot get two Democrats (or two Republicans) who will agree on each and every "must have" or "cannot stand" that they're using as guidelines for this election.
You mentioned tolerance, quite a buzz word these days. But tolerance is not enough, in my opinion. Tolerance says we're putting up with something. Rather than that, we all need to honor and respect (and Christians need to love) each other. We need to remember the Golden Rule - there's something similar in every religion, and well it should be. If we treated others as we wished to be treated, we'd have so many less problems in this world where we live.
You said, I am not harmed by the married gay couple who live next door. It does not threaten my conventional heterosexual marriage in any way. But the self righteous deny this obvious fact. When asked for a reason, they quote the Scripture.
You're right again. Don't get used to this. :-) We are not harmed by having a gay couple live next door, and my brothers and sisters who claim to be Christian and yet show hatred towards others are not behaving like the Christ they claim to love and serve.
But...it is important to know how one's leaders think and believe about such things. Most of us want a leader who matches our belief system in those "must have" and "cannot stand" ways at a minimum.
I am attempting to impose my belief that government should not be involved in the issues you name. They should be matters that each individual decides for themselves.
I think that is quite a different kind of imposition from that advocated by the Religious Right.
But...regarding the earlier allegations that I am self righteous. I admitted that in the very first paragraph of the article. I believe it is a universal trait exhibited by virtually all humans. Not every one of us attempts to use it to impose our morals or faith-based beliefs on others. Some might try to convince others to buy a Ford instead of a Chevrolet.
But whether I am self righteous or not is irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Don't confuse the message with the messenger.
I am critical of the great crimes against humanity that have been committed...Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, and more recently ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda, plus, of course, the WTC attacks. Does this make me self righteous? Whether your answer is yes or no, the fact remains that EVERY ONE of these horrendous events was caused by self righteous people. Call them misguided, even call them evil, but if you have read the history, you know that they believed they were doing the "right thing."
And THAT is the point I was trying to make.
"Usually, the term refers to people who lecture others about morals or faith, but it applies equally to politics, choice of automobile models, or even physical fitness and food choices."
If something usually applies to something, that means that it applies to something more often than anything else does, so then how can other things also equally apply to that something?
That can only be corrected by the understanding of the truth of God (GOD) and the Equality of the Spiritual aspect of the Trinity of that truth (+=-) ... where Spirit is the commonality of all creation and fully allows all differences in their proper relationships without conflict ... allowing cooperation in appreciation of natural diversity and the synergy which comes from that when common goals are involved.
The latter is esoteric only in comparison to the exoteric, yet it is the needed understanding that would bring a cure to all of our current world problems ... nothing much else will ... IMnsHO.
So it does appear that your sentence that starts the body of your article was an attempt to camouflage your true intent. Once again, I could be wrong.
"Any interpretation of religion that instigates harm to others is due to egotistical concepts of duality selfishness ... the exoteric version common to most world religions ... a world view of most everything"
You illustrate (to me) where the "self righteousness" of this whole article and much of the thread is born; In the mind, of course. You speak of the "exoteric" view of most of the worlds religions, yet on the planet Earth, virtually no religions bless harming others, in their "exoteric", or outward, teachings. You are calling such things exoteric, but they are in fact; your "esoteric" concepts. That is why you have nothing to quote or refer to, in order to illustrate your point.
Within one's mind, it is possible to construct virtually any sequence of thoughts and images, to yield virtually any conclusion one desires. One can imagine that they are seeing what other's "really" believe or intend, but it is one's own thoughts being attributed to others, in a pretend world. Through a failure to grasp this virtually limitless freedom to meander about in the mind's attempts to justify itself, the person can become convinced that they are seeing a more real reality, when of course, they are seeing a self generated reality.
That reality does not include people as they are, nor a "random sampling" of things the person has seen or heard tell of. It is fabricated by the very same mind that is drawing conclusions from what it sees in there. If that mind is trying to justify itself, it will, naturally, construct views of the world within, which will provide precisely the basis for that justification it sought. When the author gazes into their imagination looking for justification for slandering religious folks . . . lo and behold; it's everywhere!
Until one comes to realize that that stuff in their head, is stuff they are generating, and which reflects their own biases and desires, they are prone to being very self righteous, for they keep verifying what they believe, with "visions" born of what they believe. They cannot see any discrepancies, and conclude they are perfectly justified in all their judgments of others.
My point was that one can be self righteous about lots of things. That seems obvious to me. Is it not to you? I mentioned later that one could be self righteous about preferring Chevrolet over Ford (or vice versa).
I didn't try to "camouflage" my intent at all. I thought I made it damn clear that self righeousness in religious belief has caused some real calamities in the history of man.
That was the POINT of the article! I don't think I could have made it any clearer.
The difference between having/expressing an opinion and being self-righteous involves whether you are open to be challenged or questioned on your opinion, whether one can be tolerant of someone else's different opinions or outlooks. More than that, it involves the perception that one is SO right that they have the right to impose their opinions and view on others. My own observation has led me to the personal conclusion that self-righteousness (i.e. closedmindedness) is likely to be in inverse proportion to the actual fact they have to base their opinion on. In other words, the more self-righteous, the less fact.
For example: a scientist who is more concerned with being regarded as "right" than they are being correct. When I run into one of these scientists, it's usually a red flag that what they are defending cannot stand scrutiny. This notion has been proved right time and again where I am.
Someone with a good basis for their opinions don't have to heckle critics or sneer at questions. They welcome the chance to demonstrate where their opinions come from.
Again, just my take on this question.
"The difference between having/expressing an opinion and being self-righteous involves whether you are open to be challenged or questioned on your opinion, whether one can be tolerant of someone else's different opinions or outlooks."
Well, in a sense that may be true, but it does not speak to the actual problem, which you touch upon here;
"For example: a scientist who is more concerned with being regarded as "right" than they are being correct. When I run into one of these scientists, it's usually a red flag that what they are defending cannot stand scrutiny."
I believe it is "giving in" to that desire to "be right", which is causing the "problem" of self-righteousness. We all wish to be right (correct, if you wish), and so have the "seed-stock" required to become self-righteous. But if one simply does not engage in the mental meandering which provides the justifications which lead to the "feed-back loop" sort of effect which plagues some scientists, and many others, then objectivity in reconsidering one's views, becomes possible. As long as one keeps generating the imaginary world within, based on the intent to justify oneself, there simply is no way.
Virtually all religious teachings (certainly all "Abrahamic" religious teachings) denounce that feed-back loop activity, and the "eating of the fruit" that comes from what springs from "the knowledge of good and evil". We are told not to believe what our own imagination generates, as if a more real reality, but rather to refrain from believing we are capable of seeing into the hearts and minds of others, as if ourselves gods.
Self righteous as I can be, as a human being, but not as any particular type of human being, merely as part of my human condition, I would certainly never admit to the possibility of being wrong unless I thought there were a slight possibility.
So we'll get back to where I left off. I pointed out that your statement, "usually, the term refers to people who lecture others about morals or faith, but it applies equally to politics, choice of automobile models, or even physical fitness and food choices,"
made no sense, or was at least confusing. You didn't address that, but that's OK, I've stated it again. You cannot have it both ways. If it's usually about people who lecture about morals or faith, then it can't also be equally applying to all of those other issues you point out in that statement.
You said that your point was that "one can be self righteous about lots of things." If that was the point of your article you should have emphasized those things as much as you emphasized self righteousness having to do with people who lecture about morals and faith, but you didn't. Only one clause of one sentence in the whole article addressed other ways someone can be self-righteous besides the ones having to do with religion and morals and faith. You merely gave the other ones an honorable mention and the rest of the entire article showed examples of self- righteousness regarding faith and religious issues. That’s a funny way to make the point that one can be self righteous about a lot of things. I don’t think I’ve ever read an article before where the point of the whole article was only mentioned in one clause of a sentence. Of course, that probably wasn’t really your point, was it?
Now here's MY point. The sentence might fool someone who doesn’t read very closely, or reads into something what they want to see rather than what is, but this is the way the sentence should have been crafted. "The term can apply to people's attitudes about politics, choice of automobile models, or even physical fitness and food choices, but it usually refers to people who lecture others about morals or faith.
Now that doesn't sound quite as nice, but that’s far more an indicator of the point of your article and 95% of its content.
One more thing, based upon the very simple and matter of fact answer that you gave me above, it may not be that you deliberately masterminded and crafted that sentence to deceive as to the article's focus. I can see how it might have just been, shall we say, some self-righteousness unconsciously revealed in your expression.
One can be correct without being right and one can be right without being correct.
One can also represent evil and be absolutely correct in their representations with facts to back them up,. but that doesn't mean that they are in the right.
Correct doesn't necessarily represent what is right or just.
Yes, I said that, and then I said:
And I stand by my statement that "usually the term applies to people who lecture others about morals or faith." In fact, the definition of righteousness that I quoted somewhere about a thousand comments back specifically related it to religion. Go back and read it. In fact, if anything I am stretching the definition of self righteousness when I include any other issues at all.
I must admit, I really do not understand what point(s) you are trying to make about the article. You accuse me of "camouflaging" my real intent. How could I have made my criticism of religious self righteousness any plainer?
The mention of other modes of self righteousness is a minor point, just made to show that it is a common human trait. But I don't understand how you could interpret the article as hiding my true feelings. I think they are obvious.
Now, as to my "self righteousness" about religion, please tell me which statements you are referring to.
When one comes from the ego perspective only, they are dealing in the self perspective, and if they claim to be right they are self righteous.
The exclusive ego view is exoteric as compared to the transcendent spiritual view which is inclusive of all peoples and thus esoteric.
The ego view relates to self as primary and to others as secondary, even when it speaks of belonging to a Religion which speaks about others and breaks the categories down into the accepted and the non-accepted, the good and the evil, with inclusion of the elect and exclusion of the rest ... selfish, narrow minded, conservative to a fault, and exoteric.
Real inclusion is spiritual in that it honours a commonality of the totality, equalizes opposites into an overall cooperative unity, a wholeness, an open mindedness that has empathy and recognition of the different thinking of others, yet has a connectedness with it, an understanding knowing that the mind is not limited to individual brains, it is a universal energy as the spiritual part of God and is individually intuitive in that it can be recognised and utilized by the spiritually astute who believe in the possibility, a more esoteric experience than that exoteric denial by the small and closed minded.
That is my truth and it is self/Self (Soul) inspired, esoteric and always denied by the close-minded exoterics ... truth and fact ... perceived as good or bad depend upon the open or close mindedness of the perceiver. IMnsHO.
Of course it can. It APPLIES equally to other issues. That does not say that the frequency of reference to self righteousness is the same for people who lecture others religion vs. about Chevy vs. Ford. The term is USUALLY applied to people or their statements about religious issues. At least that has been my experience. Has yours been different?
And are school principals really mean, Bert? I bet they are spoken of as mean more often than just about any group. Do ya figure there must be some truth in it? Shall we recite stories about school principals, and call it a serious investigation of the problem of meanness?
I know, we could talk about greedy Jewish people we've known, or heard tell of, and be delving into the "problem" of avarice. Or maybe we could unravel the mysteries of the gullibility "problem", by reciting blond jokes. Or maybe we could all join Jerry in a deep high esoteric discourse on "closed-minded conservatives", and "open-minded liberals", and get that whole "problem" thoroughly examined?
You can fart around all you want, but it's real obvious that you just wanted to keep that old cliche about religious folks being "self righteous hypocrites" going strong. And pile on to the "violent religious fanatics" bandwagon of mindless TV wisdom. Kid stuff.
The other kids will play along, and get another day's bullying in, but it's just a silly game, a platform to announce one's shallowness.
Gonna weave some more webs of rhetorical non-sense? You don't need me for that, ask Mr. History your silly question.
Read the article again.
Here are my statements referring to the history of religious atrocities that I attribute to self righteousness:
Tell me which of my allegations about religious self righteousness are wrong...where they contradict historical fact.
Bob and weave, Mr Knight. The truth is the truth. You cannot escape it. I wish it were just "kid stuff." To me it is extremely childlike to ignore these dangers...or even more infantile to welcome them, hoping for "rapture."
I know this is gonna come as a real shock to you, but anyone at all can claim to be a Muslim. No real Muslim would dare to murder innocent people, for their Books tell them in no uncertain terms that they will go to Hell if they do that. And no Christian would murder innocent people, cause our Books say precisely the same thing.
You seem not to realize that criminals can lie.
Are all those people criminals too, and not really Muslims?
Actually, the Koran makes very specific statements about "converting, enslaving or killing" infidels. Look it up yourself. The Bible similarly instructs that homosexuals or "blasphemers" should be put to death. Surely you know about those passages.
The Spanish Inquisition was an extortion scheme, run intermittently by the Spanish royal family to extract money from rich people. (resulting in about 4,000 deaths total). Obviously, they were not people that believed in the all powerful God, that was going to punish them severely for that stuff. They were criminals who were in positions of power, exploiting religion. Heaven knows corrupt rulers will do that sort of thing . . .
Palestine (like Israel) is among the LEAST religious countries on Earth. No one is fighting about the proper way to approach God, for God-sake, it's about land and resources and power. Muslims and Jews (and Christians) live together in peace and harmony all over the world. All these branches share the same basic beliefs, and all prohibit messing with each other's religions or Books, and consider preserving significant sites and artifacts for their brother's, a duty. I realize the TV don't talk like that, but hey, that's the damn TV we're talking about, not the Word of God.
And you obviously don't know squat about the Books of these religions, and cannot cite any of the passages you refer to, but don't actually constitute what you're imagining. The Book does not say WE are to put such people to death, it says God will, which doesn't actually mean much either, we all die. It's a way of saying trouble will come of it.
And the Islamic Books include whole sections where the WRONG approach is spelled out, and rejected. So while such "words" are in there, they are NOT instructions to do that sort of thing, but instruction not to. Mohamed speaks many times about these matters, and he says without a doubt, that the under no circumstances is anyone to be "converted" by force. The very concept is so utterly alien to the God of Abraham, as to be preposterous.
You're being fed scary stories by war mongers and sensationalists out to make a buck. Delve deeper, if you wish to know the truth.
If you want some book titles that will change your mind on this, I would be happy to supply a list.
As for the Koran, it is so full of factual and historical errors and contradictions that you can find whatever you want. The same is true for the Bible, although to a somewhat lesser extent. At least the Bible is better literature. There are tons of grammatical errors in the Koran, and I am talking about the original Arabic, as it was dictated to Muhammed by Allah! Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, not translated like the Bible has been from the original language.
They don't seem to be troubled by the hundreds of historical, factual and grammatical errors that Koran scholars have pointed out.
So all the leaders of the Catholic church who tortured people in the Inquisition were "criminals," not real Christians? That "not real Christians" argument doesn't work for me. The same people who claim all the bad guys are not real Christians will also tell me that they can't kick those "not real christians" out of their churches, or even tell them not to use the christian name on their churches, even if they are only fronts for hate groups. That tells me that anyone who claims to be a christian is a real christian, and real christians do terrible things.