Christian vews on sin and criticism of religion Wikipedia pages

Christian views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 The Prodigal son (cf. Lk 15:11-32).
The doctrine of sin is central to Christianity, since its basic message is about redemption in Jesus Christ.[1] Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his Person and his commandments, and by injuring others.[2] It is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God's nature and his eternal law. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[3][4]
Among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as legal infraction or contract violation or violation of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, which is similar to Jewish thinking,[citation needed] see Judaism and Christianity#Sin for a comparison.
Other Christian scholars understand sin to be fundamentally relational—a loss of love for God and an elevation of self-love ("concupiscence", in this sense), as was later propounded by Augustine in his debate with the Pelagians.[5] As with the legal definition of sin, this definition also affects the understanding of Grace and salvation, which are thus viewed in relational terms.[6][7]


Contents  [hide]
1 Sin in the Bible 1.1 Old Testament 1.1.1 Original sin

2 Roman Catholic views 2.1 Thomas Aquinas
2.2 Catechism
3 Protestant views 3.1 Defined types of sin
4 Eastern Christian views
5 Jehovah's Witnesses
6 Liberal theology
7 Atonement
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links

Sin in the Bible[edit]
Old Testament[edit]
The first reference to "sin" as a noun is of sin "lying at the door," waiting to overpower Cain,[Gen 4:7][cf. 1 Pet 5:8] a form of literary theriomorphism.[8] The first use of the verb is God preventing Abimelech from "sinning against me" by touching Abraham's wife in Genesis 20. Isaiah announced the consequences: a separation between God and man, and unrequited worshipping.[Isaiah 59:2]
Original sin[edit]
Main article: Original sin
According to mainstream Christian theology, at the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree—which God had commanded them not to do—both sin and death were born. The years of life were limited. Since Adam represented the human race, he is held responsible, for which reason the Fall of man is referred to as the "sin of Adam", which is deemed to be inherited from him as a condition of fallen human nature. This doctrine is closely associated with Augustine of Hippo. The extent to which it was held by early Christians is debated.[9]
The concept of Original Sin is said to be cause of Adam and his descendants losing unrestricted access to God: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."[Rom 5:12] In Christian theology, the death of Jesus on the cross is the atonement to the sin of Adam.[10] "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[1 Cor 15:22] As a result of that act of atonement, all who put their trust in Jesus (and, in some denominations, are baptized) now have unrestricted access to God through him.
Roman Catholic views[edit]
Thomas Aquinas[edit]



 Aquinas distinguished between sins of omission, and sins of commission[11][12][13]
The way Thomas Aquinas viewed sin and vices was radically different from later approaches, especially that of 17th century moral theology. He presented sin and vices as contraries of virtues. He discusses the subject in his Summa Theologica part Ia-IIae (Prima secundae) qq.71-89.[14]
In one of his definitions of sin Thomas quotes Augustine of Hippo's description of sin as "a thought, words and deed against the Eternal Law."'[15]

Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak (quasi ratio Dei). Accordingly Augustine includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says, word, deed, or desire; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, contrary to the eternal law. (STh I-II q.71 a.6)[16]
To recognise the possibilities of sin in man is equal to acknowledge his human nature, his control and mastery of his own actions. Sin is a motion to the goal, it is judged by the object to which it is directed. The field of sin is the same as the field of virtue. There are three major fields: relationship with God, with oneself and with the neighbour. Thomas distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is when a person has irreparably destroyed the very principle of his/her order to the goal of life. Venial sin is when he/she has acted in a certain disordered way without destructing that principle:

Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one's neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one's neighbour, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. (STh I-II q.72 a.5)
According to Aquinas the gravity of sin depends also on some disposition of the agent (cf. STh I-II q. 18, aa. 4, 6). Sin, venial by reason of its object, may become mortal. It happens when person fixes his/her ultimate happiness, the last end of his/her life (Lat. finis ultimus) in the object of that venial sin. When venial sin is used as a way to provoke mortal sin it becomes mortal as well, e.g. when someone uses empty conversation or a chat to seduce someone to commit adultery. Also sin, mortal by reason of its object, may become venial because of the agent's disposition when his/her evil act does not have full moral capacity, i.e. is not deliberated by reason. That may happen for instance when sudden movements of unbelief arise in the mind. (Cf. STh I-II q.72 a.5).
The difference and gravity of sins may be discerned on the grounds of spirit and flesh, even mortal sins may differ in gravity. Carnal sins like lust, adultery or fornication, gluttony and avarice, because the person who commits them is inordinately directed towards material goods that are a serious matter, are mortal sins. They may cause much shame and infamy. But spiritual sins like blaspheming of God or apostasy are, according to Thomas, still greater evil, as they have more of the aversion from God. They are directed against a greater object. The formal, essential element of sin is more at the centre in them. (cf. STh I-II q.72 a.2)[11][17]
According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is "the turning away from the immutable good", i.e. God, and "inordinate turning to mutable good", i.e. creatures. (STh I-IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts. Both aversio and conversio constitute one single guilty action. At the root of the inordinate turning to the creatures is self-love which expresses itself in disordered desire (cupiditas) and rebellion towards God (superbia).[18]
Speaking about sloth (Lat. acedia) Thomas points out that every deed which "by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin". An effect of such deed is the destruction of "spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us." Sin of a mortal character is always committed with the consent of reason: "Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason"'. (cf. STh II-IIae q.35 a.3) Venial and mortal sins can be compared to sickness and death. While venial sin impairs full healthy activity of a person, mortal sin destroys the principle of spiritual life in him/her.[19]
Catechism[edit]
Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin (also sometimes called "actual sin") and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.
Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner performs the act with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (cf. CCC 1857)
The act of committing a mortal sin destroys charity, i. e. the grace in the heart of a Christian; it is in itself a rejection of God (CCC1855). If left un-reconciled, mortal sins may lead to eternal separation from God, traditionally called damnation.
Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist (after proper contrition fulfilled).
Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God's mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God's justice.
Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.
The Roman Catholic view of sin has recently expanded. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Catholic Apostolic Penitentiary, has said that "known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole,"[20] including, for example:
"certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature, through genetic manipulations [or experiments],"
"drug [abuse], which weakens the mind and obscures intelligence,"
"environmental pollution,"
"abortion and pedophilia," and
the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, which "cause an unbearable social injustice" (accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty). The revision was aimed at encouraging confession or the Sacrament of Penance.
Mortal sins, which are any severe and intentional actions that directly disobey God, are often confused with the seven deadly sins, which are pride, envy, lust, anger, greed, sloth and gluttony. They are not, however, the same.
Another group of four or five sins distinguished by the Church are the sins that cry to heaven: murder, sodomy, (oppression of a people,) oppression of the weak and defrauding the laborer.[21]
See also: Seven deadly sins
Protestant views[edit]
Many Protestants of a Calvinist orientation teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus' substitutionary atonement (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). According to traditional Reformed theology and classical Lutheranism, Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12-19), is most closely associated with Calvinist doctrine (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the relative or nominal "goodness" of humanity through God's common grace upon both those predestined to salvation and those predestined to damnation, upon the regenerate and the unregenerate. Methodist Arminian theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's prevenient grace.
This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some Protestants and Orthodox Christians hold similar views.
There is dispute about where sin originated. Some who interpret the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as a symbol for Satan believe sin originated when Satan coveted the position that rightfully belongs to God. The origin of individual sins is discussed in James 1:14-15 - "14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (NIV)
Defined types of sin[edit]
Within some branches of Protestantism, there are several defined types of sin (as in Roman Catholicism):
Original sin—Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment). See also: total depravity.
Concupiscence
Venial sin
Mortal sin
Eternal sin—Commonly called the Unforgivable sin (mentioned in Matthew 12:31), this is perhaps the most controversial sin, whereby someone has become an apostate, forever denying themselves a life of faith and experience of salvation; the precise nature of this sin is often disputed.
Eastern Christian views[edit]
The (Chalcedonian) Eastern Orthodox as well as the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox use "sin" both to refer to humanity's fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. In many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish, although neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among "grades" of sins.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, tend not to adhere to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin taught by the Latin Church. Like the Orthodox Churches, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from Holy Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. In this respect, the Eastern Tradition is similar to the Western, but the Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a state to automatically mean damnation to "hell."[citation needed]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that sin is inherited, like a disease, and has been passed on from generation to generation of humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, whom Witnesses believe are real historical characters.[22] They believe that it began with the Devil, and then with humans wanting to decide for themselves what was "Good and Bad." They believe that at that very moment they lost perfection and began to die. Jehovah's Witnesses consider human beings to be souls, and so when a human dies due to sin, they believe that his soul dies as well.[23] They believe that Jesus is the only human ever to have lived and died sinless.
Liberal theology[edit]
Within Liberal Christianity, individual sins such as abortion or homosexual acts are often less emphasized. Sin can be seen as interpersonal (harming one's neighbours, friends, or families with negative actions), environmental (pollution, overconsumption), structural (misogyny, racism, etc.), or personal (actions which are harmful to oneself). As a result of this re-interpretation of the traditional concept of sin, new concepts of liberation and salvation are created. Old Testament writers like Amos (2:7), Jeremiah (cf Book of Lamentations 3:34-36) and Nehemiah (1:6f) emphasise social justice and the rights of the oppressed. Modern figures like Martin Luther King, Catholic Dorothy Day [1] and evangelical Jim Wallis have campaigned on issues like social justice, Immigration reform and peace [2].
See also Collective Salvation and Liberation theology
Atonement[edit]
Main article: Atonement in Christianity
In Christianity, it is generally understood that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. However, the actual meaning of this precept is very widely debated. The traditional teaching of some churches traces this idea of atonement to blood sacrifices in the ancient Hebraic faith.
Christian theologians have presented different interpretations of atonement:
Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in satisfaction of his claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan a power equal to God.
Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that his perfect obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience.
Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God's image again.[24]
Augustine of Hippo said that sin was not a created thing at all, but was "privatio boni", a "taking away of good".
Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ's death satisfied God's offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. God rewarded Christ's obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, the merit theory, or sometimes the commercial theory. Anselm's teaching is contained in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Anselm's ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which although initially inciting controversy eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine.
Pierre Abélard developed the view that Christ's Passion was God suffering with his creatures in order to show the greatness of his love for them, and the realization of this love in turn leads to repentance. It is often known as the moral influence theory of atonement and became central to more liberal strands of Christian theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, leaders of the Protestant Reformation, owed much to Anselm's theory and taught that Christ, the only sinless person, was obedient to take upon himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on men and women. This view is a version of substitutionary atonement and is sometimes called the penal substitution view. It is derived from the Roman Catholic satisfaction theory of atonement, although it is not identical to that of Anselm. Calvin additionally advocated a doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that the atonement extends and applies only to the sins of the eternally predestined elect rather than to the entire human race, whereas Anselm affirmed a general redemption for all humanity and denied that Christ received punishment for sins, although he made satisfaction to God.
D.L. Moody once said, "If you are under the power of evil, and you want to get under the power of God, cry to Him to bring you over to His service; cry to Him to take you into His army. He will hear you; He will come to you, and, if need be, He will send a legion of angels to help you to fight your way up to heaven. God will take you by the right hand and lead you through this wilderness, over death, and take you right into His kingdom. That's what the Son of Man came to do. He has never deceived us; just say here; "Christ is my deliverer.""
Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.
Karl Barth taught that Christ's death manifested God's love and his hatred for sin.
Barbara Reid, a dissenting Roman Catholic feminist and Dominican nun, argues that commonly conceived atonement theologies are harmful, especially to women and other oppressed minorities.[25] Other liberal and radical theologians have also challenged traditional views of atonement. (see collective salvation)
Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, taught that atonement exemplifies our underlying spiritual unity with God, whereby we reflect divine Love (God): Christ's atonement reconciles man to God, not God to man.
See also[edit]
Heaven (Christianity)
Law of Christ
Reconciliation
Sacraments (Catholic Church)
Salvation
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Rahner, p. 1588
2.Jump up ^ Sabourin, p. 696
3.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22,27; PL 42,418; cf. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II q71 a6.
4.Jump up ^ Mc Guinness, p. 241
5.Jump up ^ On Grace and Free Will (see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P.Holmes, vol. 5; 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ Grace is understood as God's love brought to the human soul by the Spirit (Romans 5:5), and salvation is the establishment of that love relationship.
7.Jump up ^ For a historical review of this understanding, see R.N.Frost, "Sin and Grace", in Paul L. Metzger, Trinitarian Soundings, T&T Clark, 2005.
8.Jump up ^ Synthesis: bulletin du Comité national de littérature comparée / Comitetul Național pentru Literatură Comparată, Institutul de Istorie și Teorie Literară "G. Călinescu." - 2002 "Sin is personified as (an animal?) which "crouches" at the door of Cain (Gen 4:7). As Gerhard von Rad (Genesis, 105) remarks, 'The comparison of sin with a beast of prey lying before the door is strange, as is the purely decorative use"
9.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation, Bridgehead, 2010, p.281.
10.Jump up ^ Stephen Finlan, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.4
11.^ Jump up to: a b Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 72 Of the Distinction of Sins
12.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Omission, New Advent, retrieved 28 February 2012
13.Jump up ^ Aquinas: Aquinas's Thoughts On Morality, The Philosopher's Lighthouse, retrieved 28 February 2012
14.Jump up ^ Pinckaers, pp. 220 and 225-6
15.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum, 22, 27, PL 44,418:
16.Jump up ^ Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 71 Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
17.Jump up ^ Farrell, p.255-272
18.Jump up ^ Josef Pieper (2001). The Concept of Sin. pp. 60–63.; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-IIae q34 a2; I q94 a1; II-IIae q162 a6; I-IIae q72 a2.
19.Jump up ^ Farrell, p. 353
20.Jump up ^ "Vatican lists new sinful behaviors". Associated Press. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
21.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997: "1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner."
22.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 61-63 'Why humans die?'
23.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 57-65 'Where are the Dead?'
24.Jump up ^ See On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius
25.Jump up ^ Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretations Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (Fortress, 2007), 17-19.
Bibliography[edit]
Mc Guinness, I. Sin (Theology of), in: New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. XIII, (reprinted 1981), The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., pp. 241–245.
Rahner, Karl, Schoonberg, Piet. "Sin", in: Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi . (1986) Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates. pp. 1579–1590. ISBN 0-86012-228-X
Farrell, Walter, A companion to the Summa vol. 2 – The Pursuit of Happiness (1985 /reprinted 2nd ed./) Westminster, Maryland - London: Christian Classics, Sheed & Ward, p. 467, ISBN 0-7220-2520-3 (UK) 0-87061-119-4 (USA)
Pieper, Josef, The Concept of Sin,(2001), tranlsated by Edward T. Oakes SJ, South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustines Press; p. 128 ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Pinckaers, Servais, The Sources of Christian Ethics, (trnasl. from French by M. T. Noble O.P.), Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Reprinted: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ISBN 0-567-29287-8 p. 489
Sabourin, Leopold SJ, Sin, in: The Oxford Companion to the Bible. (1993) Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan (ed.) New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5, pp. 696.
External links[edit]
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q71: Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian belief and doctrine
Christian hamartiology
Sin
Christian ethics






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Чӑвашла
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Nederlands
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 April 2015, at 22:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin




















Christian views on sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




 The Prodigal son (cf. Lk 15:11-32).
The doctrine of sin is central to Christianity, since its basic message is about redemption in Jesus Christ.[1] Christian hamartiology describes sin as an act of offence against God by despising his Person and his commandments, and by injuring others.[2] It is an evil human act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as God's nature and his eternal law. According to the classical definition of St. Augustine of Hippo sin is "a word, deed, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God."[3][4]
Among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as legal infraction or contract violation or violation of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, which is similar to Jewish thinking,[citation needed] see Judaism and Christianity#Sin for a comparison.
Other Christian scholars understand sin to be fundamentally relational—a loss of love for God and an elevation of self-love ("concupiscence", in this sense), as was later propounded by Augustine in his debate with the Pelagians.[5] As with the legal definition of sin, this definition also affects the understanding of Grace and salvation, which are thus viewed in relational terms.[6][7]


Contents  [hide]
1 Sin in the Bible 1.1 Old Testament 1.1.1 Original sin

2 Roman Catholic views 2.1 Thomas Aquinas
2.2 Catechism
3 Protestant views 3.1 Defined types of sin
4 Eastern Christian views
5 Jehovah's Witnesses
6 Liberal theology
7 Atonement
8 See also
9 References
10 Bibliography
11 External links

Sin in the Bible[edit]
Old Testament[edit]
The first reference to "sin" as a noun is of sin "lying at the door," waiting to overpower Cain,[Gen 4:7][cf. 1 Pet 5:8] a form of literary theriomorphism.[8] The first use of the verb is God preventing Abimelech from "sinning against me" by touching Abraham's wife in Genesis 20. Isaiah announced the consequences: a separation between God and man, and unrequited worshipping.[Isaiah 59:2]
Original sin[edit]
Main article: Original sin
According to mainstream Christian theology, at the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree—which God had commanded them not to do—both sin and death were born. The years of life were limited. Since Adam represented the human race, he is held responsible, for which reason the Fall of man is referred to as the "sin of Adam", which is deemed to be inherited from him as a condition of fallen human nature. This doctrine is closely associated with Augustine of Hippo. The extent to which it was held by early Christians is debated.[9]
The concept of Original Sin is said to be cause of Adam and his descendants losing unrestricted access to God: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."[Rom 5:12] In Christian theology, the death of Jesus on the cross is the atonement to the sin of Adam.[10] "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."[1 Cor 15:22] As a result of that act of atonement, all who put their trust in Jesus (and, in some denominations, are baptized) now have unrestricted access to God through him.
Roman Catholic views[edit]
Thomas Aquinas[edit]



 Aquinas distinguished between sins of omission, and sins of commission[11][12][13]
The way Thomas Aquinas viewed sin and vices was radically different from later approaches, especially that of 17th century moral theology. He presented sin and vices as contraries of virtues. He discusses the subject in his Summa Theologica part Ia-IIae (Prima secundae) qq.71-89.[14]
In one of his definitions of sin Thomas quotes Augustine of Hippo's description of sin as "a thought, words and deed against the Eternal Law."'[15]

Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak (quasi ratio Dei). Accordingly Augustine includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says, word, deed, or desire; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, contrary to the eternal law. (STh I-II q.71 a.6)[16]
To recognise the possibilities of sin in man is equal to acknowledge his human nature, his control and mastery of his own actions. Sin is a motion to the goal, it is judged by the object to which it is directed. The field of sin is the same as the field of virtue. There are three major fields: relationship with God, with oneself and with the neighbour. Thomas distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is when a person has irreparably destroyed the very principle of his/her order to the goal of life. Venial sin is when he/she has acted in a certain disordered way without destructing that principle:

Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one's neighbour, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner's will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one's neighbour, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus. (STh I-II q.72 a.5)
According to Aquinas the gravity of sin depends also on some disposition of the agent (cf. STh I-II q. 18, aa. 4, 6). Sin, venial by reason of its object, may become mortal. It happens when person fixes his/her ultimate happiness, the last end of his/her life (Lat. finis ultimus) in the object of that venial sin. When venial sin is used as a way to provoke mortal sin it becomes mortal as well, e.g. when someone uses empty conversation or a chat to seduce someone to commit adultery. Also sin, mortal by reason of its object, may become venial because of the agent's disposition when his/her evil act does not have full moral capacity, i.e. is not deliberated by reason. That may happen for instance when sudden movements of unbelief arise in the mind. (Cf. STh I-II q.72 a.5).
The difference and gravity of sins may be discerned on the grounds of spirit and flesh, even mortal sins may differ in gravity. Carnal sins like lust, adultery or fornication, gluttony and avarice, because the person who commits them is inordinately directed towards material goods that are a serious matter, are mortal sins. They may cause much shame and infamy. But spiritual sins like blaspheming of God or apostasy are, according to Thomas, still greater evil, as they have more of the aversion from God. They are directed against a greater object. The formal, essential element of sin is more at the centre in them. (cf. STh I-II q.72 a.2)[11][17]
According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is "the turning away from the immutable good", i.e. God, and "inordinate turning to mutable good", i.e. creatures. (STh I-IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts. Both aversio and conversio constitute one single guilty action. At the root of the inordinate turning to the creatures is self-love which expresses itself in disordered desire (cupiditas) and rebellion towards God (superbia).[18]
Speaking about sloth (Lat. acedia) Thomas points out that every deed which "by its very nature is contrary to charity is a mortal sin". An effect of such deed is the destruction of "spiritual life which is the effect of charity, whereby God dwells in us." Sin of a mortal character is always committed with the consent of reason: "Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason"'. (cf. STh II-IIae q.35 a.3) Venial and mortal sins can be compared to sickness and death. While venial sin impairs full healthy activity of a person, mortal sin destroys the principle of spiritual life in him/her.[19]
Catechism[edit]
Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin (also sometimes called "actual sin") and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.
Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner performs the act with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (cf. CCC 1857)
The act of committing a mortal sin destroys charity, i. e. the grace in the heart of a Christian; it is in itself a rejection of God (CCC1855). If left un-reconciled, mortal sins may lead to eternal separation from God, traditionally called damnation.
Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist (after proper contrition fulfilled).
Both mortal and venial sins have a dual nature of punishment. They incur both guilt for the sin, yielding eternal punishment, and temporal punishment for the sin. Reconciliation is an act of God's mercy, and addresses the guilt and eternal punishment for sin. Purgatory and indulgences address the temporal punishment for sin, and exercise of God's justice.
Roman Catholic doctrine also sees sin as being twofold: Sin is, at once, any evil or immoral action which infracts God's law and the inevitable consequences, the state of being that comes about by committing the sinful action. Sin can and does alienate a person both from God and the community. Hence, the Catholic Church's insistence on reconciliation with both God and the Church itself.
The Roman Catholic view of sin has recently expanded. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Catholic Apostolic Penitentiary, has said that "known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole,"[20] including, for example:
"certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature, through genetic manipulations [or experiments],"
"drug [abuse], which weakens the mind and obscures intelligence,"
"environmental pollution,"
"abortion and pedophilia," and
the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor, which "cause an unbearable social injustice" (accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty). The revision was aimed at encouraging confession or the Sacrament of Penance.
Mortal sins, which are any severe and intentional actions that directly disobey God, are often confused with the seven deadly sins, which are pride, envy, lust, anger, greed, sloth and gluttony. They are not, however, the same.
Another group of four or five sins distinguished by the Church are the sins that cry to heaven: murder, sodomy, (oppression of a people,) oppression of the weak and defrauding the laborer.[21]
See also: Seven deadly sins
Protestant views[edit]
Many Protestants of a Calvinist orientation teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus' substitutionary atonement (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15; 1 Timothy 2:5-6). According to traditional Reformed theology and classical Lutheranism, Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12-19), is most closely associated with Calvinist doctrine (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the relative or nominal "goodness" of humanity through God's common grace upon both those predestined to salvation and those predestined to damnation, upon the regenerate and the unregenerate. Methodist Arminian theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's prevenient grace.
This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some Protestants and Orthodox Christians hold similar views.
There is dispute about where sin originated. Some who interpret the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as a symbol for Satan believe sin originated when Satan coveted the position that rightfully belongs to God. The origin of individual sins is discussed in James 1:14-15 - "14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (NIV)
Defined types of sin[edit]
Within some branches of Protestantism, there are several defined types of sin (as in Roman Catholicism):
Original sin—Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment). See also: total depravity.
Concupiscence
Venial sin
Mortal sin
Eternal sin—Commonly called the Unforgivable sin (mentioned in Matthew 12:31), this is perhaps the most controversial sin, whereby someone has become an apostate, forever denying themselves a life of faith and experience of salvation; the precise nature of this sin is often disputed.
Eastern Christian views[edit]
The (Chalcedonian) Eastern Orthodox as well as the (non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox use "sin" both to refer to humanity's fallen condition and to refer to individual sinful acts. In many ways the Orthodox Christian view of sin is similar to the Jewish, although neither form of Orthodoxy makes formal distinctions among "grades" of sins.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, which derive their theology and spirituality from same sources as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, tend not to adhere to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin taught by the Latin Church. Like the Orthodox Churches, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches do make a distinction between sins that are serious enough to bar one from Holy Communion (and must be confessed before receiving once again) and those which are not sufficiently serious to do so. In this respect, the Eastern Tradition is similar to the Western, but the Eastern Churches do not consider death in such a state to automatically mean damnation to "hell."[citation needed]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that sin is inherited, like a disease, and has been passed on from generation to generation of humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, whom Witnesses believe are real historical characters.[22] They believe that it began with the Devil, and then with humans wanting to decide for themselves what was "Good and Bad." They believe that at that very moment they lost perfection and began to die. Jehovah's Witnesses consider human beings to be souls, and so when a human dies due to sin, they believe that his soul dies as well.[23] They believe that Jesus is the only human ever to have lived and died sinless.
Liberal theology[edit]
Within Liberal Christianity, individual sins such as abortion or homosexual acts are often less emphasized. Sin can be seen as interpersonal (harming one's neighbours, friends, or families with negative actions), environmental (pollution, overconsumption), structural (misogyny, racism, etc.), or personal (actions which are harmful to oneself). As a result of this re-interpretation of the traditional concept of sin, new concepts of liberation and salvation are created. Old Testament writers like Amos (2:7), Jeremiah (cf Book of Lamentations 3:34-36) and Nehemiah (1:6f) emphasise social justice and the rights of the oppressed. Modern figures like Martin Luther King, Catholic Dorothy Day [1] and evangelical Jim Wallis have campaigned on issues like social justice, Immigration reform and peace [2].
See also Collective Salvation and Liberation theology
Atonement[edit]
Main article: Atonement in Christianity
In Christianity, it is generally understood that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice that relieves believers of the burden of their sins. However, the actual meaning of this precept is very widely debated. The traditional teaching of some churches traces this idea of atonement to blood sacrifices in the ancient Hebraic faith.
Christian theologians have presented different interpretations of atonement:
Origen taught that the death of Christ was a ransom paid to Satan in satisfaction of his claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin. This was opposed by theologians such as St. Gregory Nazianzen, who maintained that this would have made Satan a power equal to God.
Irenaeus of Lyons taught that Christ recapitulated in himself all the stages of life of sinful man, and that his perfect obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience.
Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Christ came to overcome death and corruption, and to remake humanity in God's image again.[24]
Augustine of Hippo said that sin was not a created thing at all, but was "privatio boni", a "taking away of good".
Anselm of Canterbury taught that Christ's death satisfied God's offended sense of justice over the sins of humanity. God rewarded Christ's obedience, which built up a storehouse of merit and a treasury of grace that believers could share by their faith in Christ. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of atonement, the merit theory, or sometimes the commercial theory. Anselm's teaching is contained in his treatise Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Anselm's ideas were later expanded utilizing Aristotelian philosophy into a grand theological system by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, particularly in his Summa Theologica, which although initially inciting controversy eventually became official Roman Catholic doctrine.
Pierre Abélard developed the view that Christ's Passion was God suffering with his creatures in order to show the greatness of his love for them, and the realization of this love in turn leads to repentance. It is often known as the moral influence theory of atonement and became central to more liberal strands of Christian theology.
Martin Luther and John Calvin, leaders of the Protestant Reformation, owed much to Anselm's theory and taught that Christ, the only sinless person, was obedient to take upon himself the penalty for the sins that should have been visited on men and women. This view is a version of substitutionary atonement and is sometimes called the penal substitution view. It is derived from the Roman Catholic satisfaction theory of atonement, although it is not identical to that of Anselm. Calvin additionally advocated a doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that the atonement extends and applies only to the sins of the eternally predestined elect rather than to the entire human race, whereas Anselm affirmed a general redemption for all humanity and denied that Christ received punishment for sins, although he made satisfaction to God.
D.L. Moody once said, "If you are under the power of evil, and you want to get under the power of God, cry to Him to bring you over to His service; cry to Him to take you into His army. He will hear you; He will come to you, and, if need be, He will send a legion of angels to help you to fight your way up to heaven. God will take you by the right hand and lead you through this wilderness, over death, and take you right into His kingdom. That's what the Son of Man came to do. He has never deceived us; just say here; "Christ is my deliverer.""
Arminianism has traditionally taught what is known as the governmental theory of atonement. Drawing primarily from the works of Jacobus Arminius and especially Hugo Grotius, the governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. Unlike the traditional Reformed perspective, this view states that Christ was not punished by God the Father in the place of sinners, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitutionary atonement for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of some or all of the human race. This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and all who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his Wesleyan-Holiness Theology. Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan Jonathan Edwards and 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.
Karl Barth taught that Christ's death manifested God's love and his hatred for sin.
Barbara Reid, a dissenting Roman Catholic feminist and Dominican nun, argues that commonly conceived atonement theologies are harmful, especially to women and other oppressed minorities.[25] Other liberal and radical theologians have also challenged traditional views of atonement. (see collective salvation)
Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, taught that atonement exemplifies our underlying spiritual unity with God, whereby we reflect divine Love (God): Christ's atonement reconciles man to God, not God to man.
See also[edit]
Heaven (Christianity)
Law of Christ
Reconciliation
Sacraments (Catholic Church)
Salvation
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Rahner, p. 1588
2.Jump up ^ Sabourin, p. 696
3.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22,27; PL 42,418; cf. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II q71 a6.
4.Jump up ^ Mc Guinness, p. 241
5.Jump up ^ On Grace and Free Will (see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P.Holmes, vol. 5; 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ Grace is understood as God's love brought to the human soul by the Spirit (Romans 5:5), and salvation is the establishment of that love relationship.
7.Jump up ^ For a historical review of this understanding, see R.N.Frost, "Sin and Grace", in Paul L. Metzger, Trinitarian Soundings, T&T Clark, 2005.
8.Jump up ^ Synthesis: bulletin du Comité national de littérature comparée / Comitetul Național pentru Literatură Comparată, Institutul de Istorie și Teorie Literară "G. Călinescu." - 2002 "Sin is personified as (an animal?) which "crouches" at the door of Cain (Gen 4:7). As Gerhard von Rad (Genesis, 105) remarks, 'The comparison of sin with a beast of prey lying before the door is strange, as is the purely decorative use"
9.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation, Bridgehead, 2010, p.281.
10.Jump up ^ Stephen Finlan, Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine, Liturgical Press, 2005, p.4
11.^ Jump up to: a b Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 72 Of the Distinction of Sins
12.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Omission, New Advent, retrieved 28 February 2012
13.Jump up ^ Aquinas: Aquinas's Thoughts On Morality, The Philosopher's Lighthouse, retrieved 28 February 2012
14.Jump up ^ Pinckaers, pp. 220 and 225-6
15.Jump up ^ Contra Faustum, 22, 27, PL 44,418:
16.Jump up ^ Cf. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II q. 71 Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves
17.Jump up ^ Farrell, p.255-272
18.Jump up ^ Josef Pieper (2001). The Concept of Sin. pp. 60–63.; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-IIae q34 a2; I q94 a1; II-IIae q162 a6; I-IIae q72 a2.
19.Jump up ^ Farrell, p. 353
20.Jump up ^ "Vatican lists new sinful behaviors". Associated Press. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-03-11. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
21.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997: "1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner."
22.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 61-63 'Why humans die?'
23.Jump up ^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 57-65 'Where are the Dead?'
24.Jump up ^ See On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius
25.Jump up ^ Barbara E. Reid, Taking Up the Cross: New Testament Interpretations Through Latina and Feminist Eyes (Fortress, 2007), 17-19.
Bibliography[edit]
Mc Guinness, I. Sin (Theology of), in: New Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. XIII, (reprinted 1981), The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., pp. 241–245.
Rahner, Karl, Schoonberg, Piet. "Sin", in: Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi . (1986) Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates. pp. 1579–1590. ISBN 0-86012-228-X
Farrell, Walter, A companion to the Summa vol. 2 – The Pursuit of Happiness (1985 /reprinted 2nd ed./) Westminster, Maryland - London: Christian Classics, Sheed & Ward, p. 467, ISBN 0-7220-2520-3 (UK) 0-87061-119-4 (USA)
Pieper, Josef, The Concept of Sin,(2001), tranlsated by Edward T. Oakes SJ, South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustines Press; p. 128 ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Pinckaers, Servais, The Sources of Christian Ethics, (trnasl. from French by M. T. Noble O.P.), Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1995. Reprinted: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ISBN 0-567-29287-8 p. 489
Sabourin, Leopold SJ, Sin, in: The Oxford Companion to the Bible. (1993) Bruce M. Metzger, Michael D. Coogan (ed.) New York - Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504645-5, pp. 696.
External links[edit]
Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II q71: Of Vice and Sin Considered in Themselves


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian belief and doctrine
Christian hamartiology
Sin
Christian ethics






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Чӑвашла
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Nederlands
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 April 2015, at 22:05.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin



















Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Shi'ism)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert Green Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayanand Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes at least as far back as the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is from the 1st century BCE with Titus Lucretius Carus' De Rerum Natura. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Suppression of art and literature
5.4 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the 16th century said: "We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others... because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville's Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release, stating: "Clearly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, with the exception of more modern religions such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá'í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets were poorly understood.[27]
These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (forms of astrology).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
Religious suffering is, at the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
—Karl Marx[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their capitalist economic system. In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism.[31]
Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable "sinfulness" of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions, which, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
John Bowker criticized the idea that "God" and "Faith" are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins' "account of religious motivation ... is ... far removed from evidence and data" and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, "it does not give rise to one set of consequences ... Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[42][43][44] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[45] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[46] Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity."[48]
Keith Ward in his book Is Religion Dangerous? addresses the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs," and notes that "[n]ot all false opinions are delusions." Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then says that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people". He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there are many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems, were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] specifically citing Judaism for its obsession with blood and sacrifice, particularly the goal of identifying and sacrificing of a pure red heifer (described in Numbers 19), the pursuit of which Hitchens characterizes as "absurd", singling out the goal of raising a human child in a "bubble" so as to "be privileged to cut that heifer's throat".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[77] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[78] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[84] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] There is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Denmark and the Netherlands, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism
Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[94][95]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[94] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his own."[96]
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in humanity's evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does not ordinarily lead to violence.That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists."[108] Richard Dawkins, in response to Pope Benedict's accusations that atheism was responsible for "some 20th-century atrocities", has replied: "how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns.... There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[110] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend[citation needed] that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Suppression of art and literature[edit]
See also: Iconoclasm
Islam strongly forbids music.[136] In February 2013, in India, a fatwa was released by a mufti against a girlband, claiming that "music is not good for society", and "All bad things happening in the Indian society are because of music."[137]
In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses.[138]
Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women's rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.[139]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[140][141][142]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[143][144][145][146][147][148] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[143] [144][145][149][150][151][152][153] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[152] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[152] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[154][155][156][157][157][158][159] In similar surveys, those who attended church were also more likely to report that they were registered to vote, that they volunteered, that they personally helped someone who was homeless, and to describe themselves as "active in the community."[160]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[161]
Survey research suggests that believers do tend to hold different views than non-believers on a variety of social, ethical and moral questions. According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, those who described themselves as believers were less likely than those describing themselves as atheists or agnostics to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage, enjoying sexual fantasies, having an abortion, sexual relationships outside of marriage, gambling, looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior, getting drunk, and "having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex."[162]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[163] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[164] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[165][166]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[165] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[167] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[168]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[169] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[170][171] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[167][172] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[173]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[174] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[175] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[176]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[177] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[178]
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[179]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[180]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[181] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[182]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[183] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[184] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[185] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[186] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[187] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[188]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[189] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][190] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[191]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[192]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[193] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[194] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[195] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[196]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[197]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[198] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[199] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[200]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[201] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[202] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[203]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[204] or activists.[205]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[206] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[207] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[206] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[208] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[206] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[209]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[209] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein in 1994 concluded that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[210] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[211]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[212] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[213]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[214]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[215]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
The term dominionism is often used to describe a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. Critics view dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.[216] Schaeffer's views influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by introducing biblical law into the secular sphere.[123][217][218] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[219][220][221] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[219]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[222][223] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[224][225] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[226] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[227][228][229] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[230][231][232] Marion Maddox,[233] James Rudin,[234] Sam Harris,[235] and the group TheocracyWatch[236] began applying the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.
Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[237][page needed][238][239] The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Chip Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point."[240] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[241] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[242] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[243] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[244] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[243]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ Middlemore, S. G. C.; Burckhardt, Jacob; Murray, Peter; Burke, Peter (1990). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044534-X.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ In his 1992–93 Gresham College lectures, written in collaboration with the psychiatrist Quinton Deeley and published as Is God a Virus?, SPCK, 1995, 274 pp. The quotes here come from p.73.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ Asser, S. M.; Swan, R (1998-Apr; vol 101 (issue 4 Pt 1)). "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect". Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): pp 625–9. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.625. PMID 9521945. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ Bar-el, Y; Durst, R; Katz, G; Zislin, J; Strauss, Z; Knobler, HY. (2000). "Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.86.
57.^ Jump up to: a b Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (2000). "Comments on Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (5): 492. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.5.492-a.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (1999). "The Jerusalem syndrome"—fantasy and reality a survey of accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries". Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat Sci. 36 (4): 260–71. PMID 10687302.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ Smith, Timothy; McCullough, Michael; Poll, Justin (2003). "Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events". Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 614–36. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614. PMID 12848223.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ Hackney, Charles H.; Sanders, Glenn S. (2003). "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.
84.Jump up ^ Clark, A. E., & Lelkes, O. (January 2009). "Let us pray: religious interactions in life satisfaction", working paper no. 2009-01. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Abstract retrieved July 2, 2009.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; Koenig, Harold G. (September 2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-6317-5.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ Wilson, David B. (2002). "The Historiography of Science and Religion". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
111.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science"
112.Jump up ^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the ‘warfare between science and religion’ and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science"
113.Jump up ^ Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
114.^ Jump up to: a b Ferngren, Gary (2002). "Introduction". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind"
115.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is perceived by some historians as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
118.Jump up ^ Rupke, Nicolaas A. (2002). "Geology and Paleontology". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ Barker, Peter; Goldstein, Bernard R. (2001). "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". Osiris. Science in Theistic Contexts 16. University of Chicago Press. pp. 88–113.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: a b Berlet, Chip. "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "The Social Structure of Islam: Being the Second Edition of The Sociology of Islam", p. 198, by Reuben Levy, year = 1957
137.Jump up ^ "Fatwa issued against Kashmiri all-girl band". Times of India. 4 February 2013.
138.Jump up ^ "BBC ON THIS DAY : 14 : 1989: Ayatollah sentences author to death". BBC (bbc.co.uk). 1989-02-14. Retrieved 2010-04-12.
139.Jump up ^ Hossain, Rakeeb (2007-08-18). "Fatwa offers unlimited money to kill Taslima". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
140.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
141.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
142.Jump up ^ Jensen, Gary F. (2006) Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look, Journal of Religion and Society, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
143.^ Jump up to: a b Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews, Todd L.; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
145.^ Jump up to: a b Regnerus, Mark D.; Burdette, Amy (2006). "Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics". The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1): 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x.
146.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
147.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use" Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
148.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (3): 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (4): 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
149.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
150.Jump up ^ Conroy, S. J.; Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). "Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students". Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.
151.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
152.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes – including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers."
153.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives."
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
155.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
156.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
157.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
158.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
159.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
160.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
161.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
162.Jump up ^ "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" (archive copy at the Internet Archive), The Barna Group, November 3, 2003 ("The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" – Summary version posted on the Barna website)
163.Jump up ^ "And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."- Arthur Schopenhauer -On Religion: A Dialogue
164.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
165.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
166.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
167.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
168.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
169.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
170.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
171.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
172.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
173.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
174.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
175.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
176.Jump up ^ D’Onofrio, Eve (2005). "Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19 (3): 373–394. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028.
177.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
178.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
179.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
180.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
181.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip (2004). "A New Face for Racism & Fascism". White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneaology. Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
182.Jump up ^ "Ostensibly scientific": cf. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The social science encyclopedia (1996), "Racism", p. 716: "This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of 'scientific techniques', to sanction the belief in European and American racial superiority"; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to sociobiology (1998), "Race, theories of", p. 18: "Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history"; Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. "In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist" (p. 151); Paul A. Erickson,Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: "Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism".
183.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
184.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
185.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
186.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
187.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
188.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
189.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
190.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
191.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
192.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
193.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
195.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
196.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
197.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
200.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
201.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
202.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
203.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
204.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
205.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
206.^ Jump up to: a b c Melzer, Emanuel (1997). No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935–1939. Hebrew Union College Press. pp. 81–90. ISBN 0-87820-418-0.
207.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
208.Jump up ^ Collins, Kenneth (November 2010). "A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893". Journal of Scottish Historical Studies 30: 75. doi:10.3366/jshs.2010.0103.
209.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
210.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
211.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
212.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
213.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
214.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
215.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
216.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
217.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
218.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
219.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
220.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
221.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
222.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
223.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
224.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
225.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
226.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
227.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
228.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
229.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
230.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
231.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
232.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
234.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
235.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
236.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
237.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
238.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
239.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
240.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
241.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
242.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
243.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
244.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 April 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion

















Criticism of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Religious criticism" redirects here. For other definitions of religious criticism, see Varieties of criticism § Religious criticism.
Part of a series on
Irreligion
"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46"

Irreligion[show]












Atheism[show]






























Agnosticism[show]










Nontheism[show]

















Naturalism[show]








People[show]








Books[show]











Secularist organizations[show]







Related topics[show]





Irreligion by country

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Criticism of religion

By religion
Buddhism ·
 Christianity  (Catholicism ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Seventh-day Adventist)
   ·
 Protestantism ·
 Hinduism ·
 Islam  (Twelver Shi'ism)
   ·
 Jainism ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism ·
 Sikhism
 
By religious figure
Jesus ·
 Moses ·
 Muhammad ·
 Ellen G. White
 
By text
Bible ·
 Book of Mormon ·
 Quran ·
 Talmud
 
Critics
Mikhail Bakunin ·
 Giordano Bruno ·
 Richard Dawkins ·
 Denis Diderot ·
 Epicurus ·
 Ludwig Feuerbach ·
 Stephen Fry ·
 Sita Ram Goel ·
 Emma Goldman ·
 Sam Harris ·
 Ayaan Hirsi Ali ·
 Christopher Hitchens ·
 Baron d'Holbach ·
 David Hume ·
 Robert Green Ingersoll ·
 Karl Marx ·
 Friedrich Nietzsche ·
 Michel Onfray ·
 Thomas Paine ·
 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon ·
 Ayn Rand ·
 André Servier ·
 David Silverman ·
 Max Stirner ·
 Bertrand Russell ·
 Dayanand Saraswati ·
 Victor J. Stenger ·
 Voltaire
 
Religious violence
Terrorism ·
 War ·
 Buddhism ·
 Christianity ·
 Islam ·
 Judaism ·
 Mormonism
 
Related topics
Abuse ·
 Apostasy ·
 Crisis of faith ·
 Criticism of atheism ·
 Criticism of monotheism ·
 Persecution ·
 Sexuality ·
 Slavery
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Criticism of religion is criticism of the concepts, doctrines, validity, and/or practices of religion, including associated political and social implications.[1]
Criticism of religion has a long history. In ancient Greece, it goes at least as far back as the 5th century BCE with Diagoras "the atheist" of Melos; in ancient Rome, an early known example is from the 1st century BCE with Titus Lucretius Carus' De Rerum Natura. Criticism of religion is complicated by the fact that there exist multiple definitions and concepts of religion in different cultures and languages. With the existence of diverse categories of religion such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, nontheism and diverse specific religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and many others; it is not always clear to whom the criticisms are aimed at or to what extent they are applicable to other religions.
Critics often consider religion to be outdated, harmful to the individual, harmful to society, an impediment to the progress of science, a source of immoral acts or customs, and a political tool for social control.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Criticism of religious concepts 2.1 Conflicting claims of "one true faith"
2.2 Lack of permanence
3 Explanations as non-divine in origin 3.1 Social construct
3.2 Narratives to provide comfort and meaning 3.2.1 Opium of the people
3.3 Viruses of the mind
3.4 Mental illness or delusion
3.5 Immature stage of societal development
4 Harm to individuals 4.1 Inadequate medical care
4.2 Jerusalem syndrome
4.3 Issues related to sexuality
4.4 Honor killings and stoning
4.5 Blood sacrifice
4.6 Genital modification and mutilation
4.7 Counterarguments
5 Harm to society 5.1 Holy war and religious terrorism 5.1.1 Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence
5.2 Suppression of scientific progress
5.3 Suppression of art and literature
5.4 Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society
6 Morality 6.1 Children
6.2 Homosexuals
6.3 Racism
6.4 Women
6.5 Animals
7 Corrupt purposes of leaders 7.1 Corrupt or immoral leaders
7.2 Dominionism
8 See also 8.1 Criticism of specific religions
8.2 Notable critics of religion
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

History[edit]
The 1st century BCE Roman poet, Titus Lucretius Carus, in his work De Rerum Natura, wrote: "But 'tis that same religion oftener far / Hath bred the foul impieties of men:"[2] A philosopher of the Epicurean school, Lucretius believed the world was composed solely of matter and void, and that all phenomena could be understood as resulting from purely natural causes. Lucretius, like Epicurus, felt that religion was born of fear and ignorance, and that understanding the natural world would free people of its shackles;[3] however, he did believe in gods.[4] He was not against religion in and of itself, but against traditional religion which he saw as superstition for teaching that gods interfered with the world.[5]
Niccolò Machiavelli, at the beginning of the 16th century said: "We Italians are irreligious and corrupt above others... because the church and her representatives have set us the worst example."[6] To Machiavelli, religion was merely a tool, useful for a ruler wishing to manipulate public opinion.[7]
In the 18th century Voltaire was a deist and was strongly critical of religious intolerance. Voltaire complained about Jews killed by other Jews for worshiping a golden calf and similar actions, he also condemned how Christians killed other Christians over religious differences and how Christians killed Native Americans for not being baptised. Voltaire claimed the real reason for these killings was that Christians wanted to plunder the wealth of those killed. Voltaire was also critical of Muslim intolerance.[8]
Also in the 18th century David Hume criticised teleological arguments for religion. Hume claimed that natural explanations for the order in the universe were reasonable, see Design argument. Demonstrating the unsoundness of the philosophical basis for religion was an important aim of Hume's writings.[9]
In the early 21st century the New Atheists, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, were prominent as critics of religion.[10][11]
Criticism of religious concepts[edit]
See also: Faith and rationality



 A sign that criticizes religion and draws attention to the September 11 attacks, by the Connecticut Valley Atheists in Rockville's Central Park, Vernon in December 2007. The group issued an explanatory press release, stating: "Clearly, 9/11 is the work of fanatics. However, we feel that religion even in moderation provides a foundation for fanatical groups to thrive."[12]
Some criticisms on monotheistic religions have been:
Sometimes conflict with science.[13]
Requiring behaviors that are not sensible (i.e. Old Testament prohibition against wearing garments of mixed fabrics, or punishing children of guilty parents).[14]
Revelations may conflict internally (i.e. discrepancies in the Bible among the four Gospels of the New Testament).[15][16][17]
Conflicting claims of "one true faith"[edit]
See also: Argument from inconsistent revelations
In the context of theistic belief, Stephen Roberts[18] has claimed that he dismisses all gods in the same way others dismiss all other gods.[19]
Lack of permanence[edit]
Opsopaus and Hitchens note obsolete religions — which no longer have active adherents — are evidence that religions are not everlasting.[20] Including Greek mythology, Millerism, Roman mythology, Sabbatai Sevi, and Norse mythology.[21]
Explanations as non-divine in origin[edit]
Social construct[edit]



Christopher Hitchens, journalist and author of God is not Great
See also: Development of religion
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have asserted that theist religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired, but man made to fulfill social, biological, and political needs.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][page needed] Dawkins balances the benefits of religious beliefs (mental solace, community-building, promotion of virtuous behavior) against the drawbacks.[25][page needed] Such criticisms treat religion as a social construct[26] and thus just another human ideology.
Narratives to provide comfort and meaning[edit]
Daniel Dennett has argued that, with the exception of more modern religions such as Raëlism, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Bahá'í Faith, most religions were formulated at a time when the origin of life, the workings of the body, and the nature of the stars and planets were poorly understood.[27]
These narratives were intended to give solace and a sense of relationship with larger forces. As such, they may have served several important functions in ancient societies. Examples include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses, and the appearance of comets (forms of astrology).[28][29] Given current understanding of the physical world, where human knowledge has increased dramatically; Hitchens, Dawkins, and French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray contend that continuing to hold on to these belief systems is irrational and no longer useful.[24][25][30]
Opium of the people[edit]



Karl Marx
Religious suffering is, at the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
—Karl Marx[31]
According to Karl Marx, the father of "scientific socialism", religion is a tool used by the ruling classes whereby the masses can shortly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their capitalist economic system. In this perspective, Marx saw religion as escapism.[31]
Marx also viewed the Christian doctrine of original sin as being deeply anti-social in character. Original sin, he argued, convinces people that the source of their misery lies in the inherent and unchangeable "sinfulness" of humanity rather than in the forms of social organization and institutions, which, Marx argued, can be changed through the application of collective social planning.[32]
Viruses of the mind[edit]



Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion
In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term memes to describe informational units that can be transmitted culturally, analogous to genes.[33] He later used this concept in the essay "Viruses of the Mind" to explain the persistence of religious ideas in human culture.[34]
John Bowker criticized the idea that "God" and "Faith" are viruses of the mind, suggesting that Dawkins' "account of religious motivation ... is ... far removed from evidence and data" and that, even if the God-meme approach were valid, "it does not give rise to one set of consequences ... Out of the many behaviours it produces, why are we required to isolate only those that might be regarded as diseased?"[35] Alister McGrath has responded by arguing that "memes have no place in serious scientific reflection",[36] that there is strong evidence that such ideas are not spread by random processes, but by deliberate intentional actions,[37] that "evolution" of ideas is more Lamarckian than Darwinian,[38] and that there is no evidence (and certainly none in the essay) that epidemiological models usefully explain the spread of religious ideas.[39] McGrath also cites a metareview of 100 studies[citation needed] and argues that "if religion is reported as having a positive effect on human well-being by 79% of recent studies in the field, then it cannot be conceivably regarded as analogous to a virus?"[40]
Mental illness or delusion[edit]



 Bodies recovered from the Jonestown massacre, in which members of a religious cult committed a mass murder/suicide
Richard Dawkins argues that religious belief often involves delusional behavior.[25] Others, such as Sam Harris, compare religion to mental illness, saying it "allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy."[41]
There are also psychological studies into the phenomenon of mysticism, and the links between disturbing aspects of certain mystic's experiences and their links to childhood abuse.[42][43][44] In another line of research, Clifford A. Pickover explores evidence suggesting that temporal lobe epilepsy may be linked to a variety of spiritual or ‘other worldly’ experiences, such as spiritual possession, originating from altered electrical activity in the brain.[45] Carl Sagan, in his last book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, presented his case for the miraculous sightings of religious figures in the past and the modern sightings of UFOs coming from the same mental disorder. According to Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, "It's possible that many great religious leaders had temporal lobe seizures and this predisposes them to having visions, having mystical experiences."[46] Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of the brain artificially with a magnetic field using a device nicknamed the "God helmet," and was able to artificially induce religious experiences along with near-death experiences and ghost sightings.[47] John Bradshaw has stated, "Some forms of temporal lobe tumours or epilepsy are associated with extreme religiosity. Recent brain imaging of devotees engaging in prayer or transcendental meditation has more precisely identified activation in such sites — God-spots, as Vilayanur Ramachandran calls them. Psilocybin from mushrooms contacts the serotonergic system, with terminals in these and other brain regions, generating a sense of cosmic unity, transcendental meaning and religious ecstasy. Certain physical rituals can generate both these feelings and corresponding serotonergic activity."[48]
Keith Ward in his book Is Religion Dangerous? addresses the claim that religious belief is a delusion. He quotes the definition in the Oxford Companion to Mind as "a fixed, idiosyncratic belief, unusual in the culture to which the person belongs," and notes that "[n]ot all false opinions are delusions." Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then says that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people". He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there are many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."[49]
Immature stage of societal development[edit]



Philosophy and Christian Art. W. Ridgway, 1878
Philosopher Auguste Comte posited that many societal constructs pass through three stages, and that religion corresponds to the two earlier, or more primitive stages by stating: "From the study of the development of human intelligence, in all directions, and through all times, the discovery arises of a great fundamental law, to which it is necessarily subject, and which has a solid foundation of proof, both in the facts of our organization and in our historical experience. The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive." [50]
Harm to individuals[edit]
Some have criticized the effects of adherence to dangerous practices such as self-sacrifice,[51] as well as unnatural restrictions on human behavior (such as teetotalism and sexual prohibitions) and claim that these result in mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt.[52]
Inadequate medical care[edit]



Saint Francis Borgia performing an exorcism, by Goya
See also: Exorcism and Faith healing
A detailed study in 1998 found 140 instances of deaths of children due to religion-based medical neglect. Most of these cases involved religious parents relying on prayer to cure the child's disease, and withholding medical care.[53]
Jerusalem syndrome[edit]
Main article: Jerusalem syndrome
Jerusalem has lent its name to a unique psychological phenomenon where Jewish or Christian individuals who develop obsessive religious themed ideas or delusions (sometimes believing themselves to be Jesus Christ or another prophet) will feel compelled to travel to Jerusalem.[54][55]
During a period of 13 years (1980–1993) for which admissions to the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Centre in Jerusalem were analyzed, it was reported[56] that 1,200 tourists with severe, Jerusalem-themed mental problems, were referred to this clinic. Of these, 470 were admitted to hospital. On average, 100 such tourists have been seen annually, 40 of them requiring admission to hospital. About 2 million tourists visit Jerusalem each year. Kalian and Witztum note that as a proportion of the total numbers of tourists visiting the city, this is not significantly different from any other city.[57][58] The statements of these claims has however been disputed, with the arguments that experiencers of the Jerusalem syndrome already were mentally ill.[57][59]
Issues related to sexuality[edit]
See also: Religion and sexuality
According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has opposed certain practices such as masturbation, or certain consensual sexual acts between adults that they see as "unnatural" and asked for their legal prohibition (see sodomy laws).[52]
Honor killings and stoning[edit]
Main articles: Honor killings and stoning
Still occurring in some parts of the world, an honor killing is when a person is killed by family for bringing dishonor or shame upon the family.[60] While religions such as Islam are often blamed for such acts, Tahira Shaid Khan, a professor of women's issues at Aga Khan University, notes that there is nothing in the Qur'an that permits or sanctions honor killings.[61] Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.[61] Khan also argues that this view results in violence against women and their being turned "into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold".[62]
Stoning is a form of capital punishment whereby a group throws stones at a person until death ensues. As of September 2010, stoning is a punishment that is included in the laws in some countries including Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria[63] as punishment for zina al-mohsena ("adultery of married persons").[64] While stoning may not be codified in the laws of Afghanistan and Somalia, both countries have seen several incidents of stoning to death.[65][66]
Until the early 2000s, stoning was a legal form of capital punishment in Iran. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary officially placed a moratorium on stoning.[67] In 2005, judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad stated, "in the Islamic republic, we do not see such punishments being carried out", further adding that if stoning sentences were passed by lower courts, they were overruled by higher courts and "no such verdicts have been carried out."[68] In 2008, the judiciary decided to fully scrap the punishment from the books in legislation submitted to parliament for approval.[69] In early 2013, Iranian parliament published official report about excluding stoning from penal code and it accused Western media for spreading "noisy propaganda" about the case.[70]
Blood sacrifice[edit]
See also: Blood sacrifice and Human sacrifice
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities,[71] specifically citing Judaism for its obsession with blood and sacrifice, particularly the goal of identifying and sacrificing of a pure red heifer (described in Numbers 19), the pursuit of which Hitchens characterizes as "absurd", singling out the goal of raising a human child in a "bubble" so as to "be privileged to cut that heifer's throat".[72]
Genital modification and mutilation[edit]
Hitchens claims that many religions endorse male circumcision and female genital cutting, which he views as genital mutilation, and as immoral, unhealthy, and unnecessary.[73]
Counterarguments[edit]
Responding in the book The Irrational Atheist to criticisms that religion is harmful, Theodore Beale argues that religious individuals tend to be happier and healthier, more likely to have children, and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.[74] There is substantial research suggesting that religious people are happier and less stressed.[75][76] Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[77] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being,"[78] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[79][vague][80] Surveys suggest a strong link between faith and altruism.[81] Studies by Keith Ward show that overall religion is a positive contributor to mental health,[82] and a meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 also found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[83] Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Lelkes surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries and found that "[one's own] religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction.", greater overall "religiosity" in a region also correlates positively with "individual life satisfaction". The reverse was found to be true: a large "atheist" (non-religious) population "has negative spillover effects" for both the religious and non-religious members of the population.[84] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[85]
However, as of 2001, most of those studies were conducted within the United States.[86] There is no significant correlation between religiosity and individual happiness in Denmark and the Netherlands, countries that have lower rates of religion than the United States.[87] A cross-national investigation on subjective well-being has noted that, globally, religious people are usually happier than nonreligious people, though nonreligious people can also reach high levels of happiness.[88] The 2013 World Happiness Report mentions that once crude factors are taken into account, there are no differences in life satisfaction between religious and less religious countries, even though a meta analysis concludes that greater religiosity is mildly associated with fewer depressive symptoms and 75% of studies find at least some positive effect of religion on well-being.[89]
Harm to society[edit]
Some aspects of religion are criticized on the basis that they damage society as a whole. Steven Weinberg, for example, states it takes religion to make good people do evil.[90] Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins cite religiously inspired or justified violence, resistance to social change, attacks on science, repression of women, and homophobia.[91]
Hartung has claimed that major religious moral codes can lead to "us vs. them" group solidarity and mentality which can dehumanise or demonise individuals outside their group as "not fully human", or less worthy. Results can vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.[92] A poll by The Guardian, a UK newspaper noted that 82% of the British people believe that religion is socially divisive and that this effect is harmful despite the observation that non-believers outnumber believers 2 to 1.[93]
Holy war and religious terrorism[edit]



 Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople by Gustave Doré (1832–1883)
Main articles: Religious war, Religious terrorism and Religious violence
Hitchens and Dawkins say that religions do tremendous harm to society in three ways:[24][page needed][25][page needed]
Religions sometimes encourage war (Crusades, Jihad), violence, and terrorism to promote their religious goals
Religious leaders contribute to secular wars and terrorism by endorsing or supporting the violence
Religious fervor is exploited by secular leaders to support war and terrorism
Although the causes of terrorism are complex, it may be that terrorists are partially reassured by their religious views that God is on their side and will reward them in heaven for punishing unbelievers.[94][95]
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims.[94] One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his own."[96]
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku considers religious terrorism as one of the main threats in humanity's evolution from a Type 0 to Type 1 civilization.[97]
Arguments against religion being a significant cause of violence[edit]



Michel Onfray, French philosopher who wrote the Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Some argue that religious violence is mostly caused by misinterpretations of the relevant religions' ethical rules and a combination of non-religious factors.[98][99][100][101] This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious.[100][102][103] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does not ordinarily lead to violence.That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances—political, social, and ideological—when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change."[104]:10 It is also argued that the same violence happens in non-religious countries or regimes such as in communist Soviet Union.[105][106][self-published source?][101][107]
Christopher Hitchens notes that "it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists."[108] Richard Dawkins, in response to Pope Benedict's accusations that atheism was responsible for "some 20th-century atrocities", has replied: "how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns.... There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness."[109]
Suppression of scientific progress[edit]



Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples cited in their writings include the trial of Galileo and Giordano Bruno's execution.
During the 19th century the conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science must inevitably lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[110] The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form is almost entirely discarded by scholars today.[111][112][113] Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public,[114] and has been publicized by the success of books such as The God Delusion.
Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject.[114][115] These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair[116] and the Scopes trial,[117] and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion; personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend[citation needed] that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers.[118][119][120] Some historians contend that many scientific developments, such as Kepler's laws[121] and the 19th century reformulation of physics in terms of energy,[122] were explicitly driven by religious ideas.
Recent examples of tensions have been the creation-evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia, and blood transfusion.[123][124][125][126][127]
Counterarguments against assumed conflict between the sciences and religions have been offered. For example, C. S. Lewis, a Christian, suggested that all religions, by definition, involve faith, or a belief in concepts that cannot be proven or disproven by the sciences. However, some religious beliefs have not been in line with views of the scientific community, for instance Young Earth creationism.[128] Though some who criticize religions subscribe to the conflict thesis, others do not. For example, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with C. S. Lewis and suggested that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria.[129] Scientist Richard Dawkins has said that religious practitioners often do not believe in the view of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).[130]
However, research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science or with the seeking out of scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[131][132] Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science.[133] Also, cross-national studies, polled from 1981-2001, on views of science and religion have noted that countries with higher religiosity have stronger trust in science, whereas countries that are seen as more secular are more skeptical about the impact of science and technology.[134] Though the United States is a highly religious country compared to other advanced industrial countries, according to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes towards science are more favorable in the United States than Europe, Russia, and Japan.[133] A study on a national sample of US college students examined whether they viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[135]
Suppression of art and literature[edit]
See also: Iconoclasm
Islam strongly forbids music.[136] In February 2013, in India, a fatwa was released by a mufti against a girlband, claiming that "music is not good for society", and "All bad things happening in the Indian society are because of music."[137]
In 1989, Muslim religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a religious edict condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for the publication of The Satanic Verses.[138]
Muslims in Bangladesh issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the death of poet and author Taslima Nasrin because of the women's rights issues raised in her books, particularly her novel Lajja.[139]
Counterarguments to religion as harmful to society[edit]
One study notes that significant levels of social dysfunction are found in highly religious countries such as the US and that countries which have lower religiosity also tend to have lower levels of dysfunction though it is noted in a later edition that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.[140][141][142]
Other studies show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior, artruism and crime.[143][144][145][146][147][148] Indeed, a meta-analysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, "religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior".[143] [144][145][149][150][151][152][153] One study revealed that, at least in the United States forty percent of worship service attenders volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[152] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[152] Other research has shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving.[154][155][156][157][157][158][159] In similar surveys, those who attended church were also more likely to report that they were registered to vote, that they volunteered, that they personally helped someone who was homeless, and to describe themselves as "active in the community."[160]
Morality[edit]
See also: Human sacrifice, Morality and religion and Religious intolerance
Dawkins contends that theistic religions devalue human compassion and morality. In his view, the Bible contains many injunctions against following one's conscience over scripture, and positive actions are supposed to originate not from compassion, but from the fear of punishment.[25] Albert Einstein stated that no religious basis is needed in order to display ethical behavior.[161]
Survey research suggests that believers do tend to hold different views than non-believers on a variety of social, ethical and moral questions. According to a 2003 survey conducted in the United States by The Barna Group, those who described themselves as believers were less likely than those describing themselves as atheists or agnostics to consider the following behaviors morally acceptable: cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage, enjoying sexual fantasies, having an abortion, sexual relationships outside of marriage, gambling, looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior, getting drunk, and "having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex."[162]
Children[edit]
See also: Indoctrination, Mind control, Religion and children and Child marriage
In the 19th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that teaching some ideas to children at a young age could foster resistance to doubting those ideas later on.[163] Richard Dawkins maintains that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated because they do not have yet sufficient maturity and knowledge to make their own conclusions.[164] Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe what they see as the harm inflicted on children by some religious upbringings.[165][166]
Dawkins states that labeling children as "Muslim child" or "Catholic child" is unreasonable since children are not mature enough to decide major questions in life for themselves. In his view, no reasonable person would speak of a "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", for instance.[165] He suggests such labeling is not seen as controversial because of the "weirdly privileged status of religion".
Islam[167] has permitted the child marriage of older men to girls as young as 9 years of age. Baptist pastor Jerry Vines has cited the age of one of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, to denounce him for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[168]
The Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children describes cases of a 10-year-old girl being married and raped in Yemen (Nujood Ali),[169] a 13-year-old Yemeni girl dying of internal bleeding three days after marriage,[170][171] and a 12-year-old girl dying in childbirth after marriage.[167][172] Yemen currently does not have a minimum age for marriage.[173]
Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14,[174] and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10.[175] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice.[176]
Homosexuals[edit]


A Westboro Baptist Church picket in Northlake, Illinois, US on November 29, 2005
Main article: Homosexuality and religion
Elton John has said that organized religion promotes the hatred of homosexuals.[177] Unlike many other religions, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as an issue.[178]
In the United States, conservative Christian groups such as the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed numerous lawsuits against public universities, aimed at overturning policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination and hate speech. These groups argue that such policies infringe their right to freely exercise religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.[179]
Homosexuality is illegal in most Muslim countries, and several of these countries impose the death penalty for homosexual behavior. In July 2005, two Iranian men, aged sixteen and eighteen, were publicly hanged for homosexuality, causing an international outcry.[180]
Racism[edit]



 Burning cross often used by Ku Klux Klan to intimidate minorities
Religion has been used by some as justification for advocating racism. The Christian Identity movement has been associated with racism.[181] There are arguments, however, that these positions may be as much reflections of contemporary social views as of what has been called scientific racism.[182]
The LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.[183] Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church’s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race.[184] Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[185] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships.
On the other hand, many Christians have made efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[186] The African American Review sees as important the role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[187] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[188]
Women[edit]
See also: Gender and religion, Christianity and domestic violence, Islam and domestic violence and Misogyny
Islamic laws have been criticized by human rights organizations for exposing women to mistreatment and violence, preventing women from reporting rape, and contributing to the discrimination of women.[189] Hitchens and the United Nations also say that Islam is used to justify unnecessary and harmful female genital mutilation (FGM), when the purposes range from deprivation of sexual satisfaction to discourage adultery, insuring virginity to their husbands, or generating appearance of virginity.[73][190] Maryam Namazie argues that women are victimized under Sharia law, both in criminal matters (such as punishment for improper veiling) and in civil matters, and also that women have judicial hurdles that are lenient or advantageous for men.[191]
According to Phyllis Chesler, Islam is connected to violence against women, especially in the form of honor killings. She rejects the argument that honor killings are not related to Islam, and claims that while fundamentalists of all religions place restrictions on women, in Islam not only are these restrictions harsher, but Islam also reacts more violently when these rules are broken.[192]
Christianity has been criticized for painting women as sinful, untrustful, deceiving, and desiring to seduce and incite men into sexual sin.[193] Katharine M. Rogers argues that Christianity is misogynistic, and that the "dread of female seduction" can be found in St. Paul's epistles.[194] K. K. Ruthven argues that the "legacy of Christian misogyny was consolidated by the so-called 'Fathers' of the Church, like Tertullian, who thought a woman was not only 'the gateway of the devil' but also 'a temple built over a sewer'."[195] Jack Holland argues the concept of fall of man is misogynistic as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".[196]
According to Polly Toynbee, religion interferes with physical autonomy, and fosters negative attitudes towards women's bodies. Toynbee writes that "Women's bodies are always the issue - too unclean to be bishops, and dangerous enough to be covered up by Islam and mikvahed by Judaism".[197]
One criticism of religion is that it contributes to unequal relations in marriage, creating norms which subordinate the wife to the husband. The word בעל (ba`al), Hebrew for husband, used throughout the Bible, is synonymous with owner and master.[198] Hitchens argued that the commandment of Thou shalt not covet is sexist because it "throws in 'wife' along with the other property, animal, human, and material, of the neighbor" and considers the wife as "chattel".[199] Hitchens pointed out that divorce in Ireland was only legalized in 1996, and argued that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland preferred for women to be trapped with violent husbands, rather than to change its dogma.[200]
Feminist Julie Bindel argues that religions encourage the domination of men over women, and that Islam promotes the submission of women to their husbands, and encourages practices such as child marriage. She wrote that religion "promotes inequality between men and women", that Islam's message for a woman includes that "she will be subservient to her husband and devote her life to pleasing him", and that "Islam's obsession with virginity and childbirth has led to gender segregation and early marriage.[201] Another feminist criticism of religion is the portrayal of God as an omnipotent, perfect power, where this power is one of domination, which is persistently associated with the characteristics of ideal masculinity.[202] Sheila Jeffreys argues that "Religion gives authority to traditional, patriarchal beliefs about the essentially subordinate nature of women and their naturally separate roles, such as the need for women to be confined to the private world of the home and family, that women should be obedient to their husbands, that women's sexuality should be modest and under the control of their menfolk, and that women should not use contraception or abortion to limit their childbearing. The practice of such ancient beliefs interferes profoundly with women's abilities to exercise their human rights".[203]
Christian religious figures have been involved in the Middle Ages and early modern period Witch trials, which were generally used to punish assertive or independent women, such as midwives, since witchcraft was often not in evidence,[204] or activists.[205]
Animals[edit]



Shechita
Kosher slaughter has historically attracted criticism from non-Jews as allegedly being inhumane and unsanitary,[206] in part as an antisemitic canard that eating ritually slaughtered meat caused degeneration,[207] and in part out of economic motivation to remove Jews from the meat industry.[206] Sometimes, however, these criticisms were directed at Judaism as a religion. In 1893, animal advocates campaigning against kosher slaughter in Aberdeen attempted to link cruelty with Jewish religious practice.[208] In the 1920s, Polish critics of kosher slaughter claimed that the practice actually had no basis in Scripture.[206] In contrast, Jewish authorities argue that the slaughter methods are based directly upon Genesis IX:3, and that "these laws are binding on Jews today."[209]
Supporters of kosher slaughter counter that Judaism requires the practice precisely because it is considered humane.[209] Research conducted by Temple Grandin and Joe M. Regenstein in 1994 concluded that, practiced correctly with proper restraint systems, kosher slaughter results in little pain and suffering, and notes that behavioral reactions to the incision made during kosher slaughter are less than those to noises such as clanging or hissing, inversion or pressure during restraint.[210] Those who practice and subscribe religiously and philosophically to Jewish vegetarianism disagree, stating that such slaughter is not required, while a number, including medieval scholars of Judaism such as Joseph Albo and Isaac Arama, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not just out of a concern for animal welfare but also the slaughterer.[211]
Other forms of ritual slaughter, such as Islamic ritual slaughter, have also come under controversy. Logan Scherer, writing for PETA, said that animals sacrificed according to Islamic law can not be stunned before they are killed.[212] Muslims are only allowed to eat meat that has been killed according to Sharia law, and they say that Islamic law on ritual slaughter is designed to reduce the pain and distress that the animal suffers.[213]
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), Halal and Kosher practices should be banned because when animals are not stunned before death, they suffer needles pain for up to 2 minutes, however, Muslims and Jews argue that loss of blood from slash to the throat renders the animals unconscious pretty quickly.[214]
Corrupt purposes of leaders[edit]
Corrupt or immoral leaders[edit]



 Caricature of Mormon leader Brigham Young's wives at his death
Hitchens has noted some leaders who have abused their positions for financial gains such as the Indian mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who owned 90 Rolls Royce cars, cult leader David Koresh, Joseph Smith who had about 27 wives, and Brigham Young who had about 57 wives.[215]
Dominionism[edit]
Main article: Dominionism
See also: Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism
The term dominionism is often used to describe a political movement among fundamentalist Christians. Critics view dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States. It emerged in the late 1980s inspired by the book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" by Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop.[216] Schaeffer's views influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by introducing biblical law into the secular sphere.[123][217][218] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[219][220][221] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[219]
In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[222][223] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[224][225] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[226] Beginning in 2004 with essayist Katherine Yurica,[227][228][229] a group of authors including journalist Chris Hedges[230][231][232] Marion Maddox,[233] James Rudin,[234] Sam Harris,[235] and the group TheocracyWatch[236] began applying the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.
Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[237][page needed][238][239] The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Chip Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point."[240] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory."[241] Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[242] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[243] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[244] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism.[243]
See also[edit]
Anthropology of religion
Antireligion
Antitheism
Atheism
Biblical inerrancy
Christianity and violence
Civil religion
Cognitive dissonance
Conversational intolerance
Deism
Development of religion
Folk religion
God is dead
Metaethics
Morality without religion
Philosophy of religion
Problem of evil
Theodicy
Psychology of religion
Rationalism
Religion
Religiosity and intelligence
Religious belief
Religious paranoia
Religious satire
Russell's teapot
Social criticism
Sociology of religion
Supernatural
Superstition
Theism
Theology
True-believer syndrome
Criticism of specific religions[edit]
Controversies about Opus Dei
Criticism of Buddhism
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of Hinduism
Criticism of Islam
Criticism of Jainism
Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Criticism of Judaism
Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Criticism of Sikhism
Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Scientology controversy
Notable critics of religion[edit]
Douglas Adams
George Carlin
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
David Hume
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Paine
Bertrand Russell
Dayanand Saraswati
Mark Twain
Voltaire
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-77431-4.
2.Jump up ^ Titus Lucretius Carus. "De Rerum Natura". Retrieved 2007-08-05.
3.Jump up ^ "Lucretius (c.99 – c.55 BCE)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-08-05.
4.Jump up ^ "Lucretius – Stanford Encyclopedia". Retrieved 19 April 2012.
5.Jump up ^ Lucretius (1992). On the Nature of Things Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. Harvard University Press. p. 8. ISBN 0-674-99200-8. "This (superstition) or "false religion", not "religion," is the meaning of "religio". The Epicureans were opposed, not to religion (cf. 6.68–79), but to traditional religion which taught that the gods govern the world. That Lucretius regarded "religio" as synonymous with "superstitio" is implied by "super....instans" in [line] 65."
6.Jump up ^ Middlemore, S. G. C.; Burckhardt, Jacob; Murray, Peter; Burke, Peter (1990). The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-14-044534-X.
7.Jump up ^ Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532). "The Prince". Retrieved 2007-08-10.
8.Jump up ^ "Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
9.Jump up ^ "Hume on Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
10.Jump up ^ Bailey, David. "What are the merits of recent claims by atheistic scholars that modern science proves religion to be false and vain?".
11.Jump up ^ "The New Atheists". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
12.Jump up ^ "The Vernon Atheist Display," Press Release, CT Valley Atheists, December 17, 2007 . Retrieved October 1, 2008.
13.Jump up ^ White, Andrew D. (1993). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom : Two volumes. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879758260.
14.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is Not Great. Random House, Inc. p. 99. ISBN 0-7710-4142-X.
15.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman; Misquoting Jesus, 166
16.Jump up ^ Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration, pp. 199–200
17.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond Edward (1999-05-18). The Birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. Yale University Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-300-14008-8.
18.Jump up ^ "History of The Quote". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
19.Jump up ^ Narciso, Dianna (2003). Like Rolling Uphill: realizing the honesty of atheism. Coral Springs, FL: Llumina Press. p. 6. ISBN 1-932560-74-2.
20.Jump up ^ Opsopaus, John. The Art of Haruspicy.
21.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 169–173.
22.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel (2006). Breaking the Spell. Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9789-3.
23.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W. W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32765-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b c Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57980-3.
25.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
26.Jump up ^ Lim, Chaeyoon; Puntam, Robert (2010). "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction". American Sociological Review 75 (6): 914–933. doi:10.1177/0003122410386686.
27.Jump up ^ Dennett, Daniel Clement (2006). Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking Adult. ISBN 0-670-03472-X.
28.Jump up ^ "When solar fears eclipse reason". BBC News. 2006-03-28. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
29.Jump up ^ "Comets in Ancient Cultures". NASA.
30.Jump up ^ Onfray, Michel (2007). Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 1-55970-820-4.
31.^ Jump up to: a b Marx, Karl (February 1844). "Introduction". A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.
32.Jump up ^ Marx, Karl (1867). Das Kapital. Volume 1, Part VIII.
33.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Selfish Gene, 30th Anniversary edition.
34.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (1991). "Viruses of the Mind".
35.Jump up ^ In his 1992–93 Gresham College lectures, written in collaboration with the psychiatrist Quinton Deeley and published as Is God a Virus?, SPCK, 1995, 274 pp. The quotes here come from p.73.
36.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.125, quoting Simon Conway Morris in support
37.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.126
38.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.127
39.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life pp.137–138
40.Jump up ^ Dawkins's God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life, p.136, citing Koenig and Cohen, The Link between Religion and Health, OUP, 2002.
41.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam (2005). The End of Faith. W.W. Norton. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-393-03515-5.
42.Jump up ^ "The Psychology of Mysticism". The Primal page.
43.Jump up ^ "Mysticism and Psychopathology". The Primal page.
44.Jump up ^ Atlas, Jerrold (2003). "Medieval Mystics' Lives As Self-Medication for Childhood Abuse".
45.Jump up ^ Pickover, Clifford (September–October 1999). The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Science & Spirit.
46.Jump up ^ "God on the Brain". BBC Science & Nature.
47.Jump up ^ Shermer, Michael (1999-11-01). "Why People Believe in God: An Empirical Study on a Deep Question". American Humanist Association. p. 2. Retrieved 2006-04-05.
48.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, John (18 June 2006). "A God of the Gaps?". Ockham’s Razor (ABC).
49.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith (2006). Is Religion Dangerous?. London:Lion Hudson Plc: Lion. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7459-5262-8.
50.Jump up ^ Comte, Auguste. "Course of Positive Philosophy (1830)".
51.Jump up ^ Branden, N. (1963), "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.
52.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
53.Jump up ^ Asser, S. M.; Swan, R (1998-Apr; vol 101 (issue 4 Pt 1)). "Child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect". Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): pp 625–9. doi:10.1542/peds.101.4.625. PMID 9521945. Check date values in: |date= (help)
54.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome: Jewish Virtual Library".
55.Jump up ^ "Jerusalem Syndrome".
56.Jump up ^ Bar-el, Y; Durst, R; Katz, G; Zislin, J; Strauss, Z; Knobler, HY. (2000). "Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.86.
57.^ Jump up to: a b Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (2000). "Comments on Jerusalem syndrome". British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (5): 492. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.5.492-a.
58.Jump up ^ Tannock C, Turner T. (1995) Psychiatric tourism is overloading London beds. BMJ 1995;311:806 Full Text
59.Jump up ^ Kalian, M; Witztum, E. (1999). "The Jerusalem syndrome"—fantasy and reality a survey of accounts from the 19th and 20th centuries". Isr. J. Psychiatry Relat Sci. 36 (4): 260–71. PMID 10687302.
60.Jump up ^ "Ethics - Honour crimes". BBC. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
61.^ Jump up to: a b Hilary Mantell Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor". National Geographic News. February 12, 2002
62.Jump up ^ "International Domestic Violence Issues". Sanctuary For Families. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
63.Jump up ^ Handley, Paul (11 Sep 2010). "Islamic countries under pressure over stoning". AFP. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
64.Jump up ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning". violence is not our culture. Retrieved 14 May 2013.
65.Jump up ^ Sommerville, Quentin (26 Jan 2011). "Afghan police pledge justice for Taliban stoning". BBC. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Nebehay, Stephanie (10 Jul 2009). "Pillay accuses Somali rebels of possible war crimes". Times of India. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
67.Jump up ^ "Iran 'adulterer' stoned to death". BBC News. 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
68.Jump up ^ "Iran denies execution by stoning". BBC News. 11 January 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
69.Jump up ^ "Iran to scrap death by stoning". AFP. August 6, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2010.
70.Jump up ^ «سنگسار» در شرع حذف شدنی نیست
71.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 205–217.
72.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. p. 206.
73.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great. pp. 223–226.
74.Jump up ^ Beale, Theodore as Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist, Benbella Books, 2008. ISBN 978-1-933771-36-6
75.Jump up ^ Rudin, Mike (30 April 2006). "The science of happiness". BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
76.Jump up ^ Paul, Pamela (9 January 2005). "The New Science of Happiness". Time.
77.Jump up ^ Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous?, p.156, citing David Myers The Science of Subjective Well-Being, Guilford Press, 2007.
78.Jump up ^ Smith, Timothy; McCullough, Michael; Poll, Justin (2003). "Religiousness and Depression: Evidence for a Main Effect and Moderating Influence of Stressful Life Events". Psychological Bulletin 129 (4): 614–36. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614. PMID 12848223.
79.Jump up ^ Bryan Johnson & colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (2002)
80.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous? cites similar results from the Handbook of Religion and Mental Health, Harold Koenig (ed.) ISBN 978-0-12-417645-4
81.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
82.Jump up ^ Is Religion Dangerous?, Chapter 9.
83.Jump up ^ Hackney, Charles H.; Sanders, Glenn S. (2003). "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta–Analysis of Recent Studies". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160.
84.Jump up ^ Clark, A. E., & Lelkes, O. (January 2009). "Let us pray: religious interactions in life satisfaction", working paper no. 2009-01. Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques. Abstract retrieved July 2, 2009.
85.Jump up ^ Moreira-Almeida, Alexander; Neto, Francisco Lotufo; Koenig, Harold G. (September 2006). "Religiousness and mental health: a review". Rev. Bras. Psiquiatr. 28 (3): 242–250. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000006. PMID 16924349.
86.Jump up ^ Koenig HG, McCullough M, Larson DB (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 18.
87.Jump up ^ Snoep, Liesbeth (6 February 2007). "Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note". Journal of Happiness Studies.
88.Jump up ^ Ronald Inglehart (2010). "Faith and Freedom: Traditional and Modern Ways to Happiness". In Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, Daniel Kahneman. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press. pp. 378–385. ISBN 978-0-19-973273-9.
89.Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013" (PDF). Columbia University. pp. 71–72.
90.Jump up ^ Weinberg, Steven (April 1999). "A Designer Universe?". PhysLink.com. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2010-02-22. "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
91.Jump up ^ Russell, Bertrand. "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?". Retrieved 2009-10-23.
92.Jump up ^ Hartung, John (1995). "Love Thy Neighbour, The Evolution of In-Group Morality". Skeptic 3 (5).
93.Jump up ^ Julian Glover. "Religion does more harm than good - poll". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
94.^ Jump up to: a b Juergensmeyer, Mark (2001-09-21). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Updated edition. University of California Press.
95.Jump up ^ "Christian Jihad: The Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ". Cbn.com. 1998-02-23. Retrieved 2011-10-08.
96.Jump up ^ "Kill Them All; For The Lord Knoweth Them That Are His Steve Locks (Reply) (9-00)". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
97.Jump up ^ "Cover Story – businesstoday – February 2007". Apexstuff.com. 1947-01-24. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
98.Jump up ^ Kabbani, Hisham; Seraj Hendricks; Ahmad Hendricks. "Jihad — A Misunderstood Concept from Islam".
99.Jump up ^ Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93.
100.^ Jump up to: a b Pape, Robert (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-6317-5.
101.^ Jump up to: a b Orr, H. Allen (1999). "Gould on God". bostonreview.net. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
102.Jump up ^ "Terrorism: The Current Threat", The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000.
103.Jump up ^ Nardin, Terry (May 2001). "Review of Terror in the Mind of God". The Journal of Politics (Southern Political Science Association) 64 (2): 683–684.
104.Jump up ^ Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24011-1.
105.Jump up ^ Feinberg, John S.; Feinberg, Paul D. (2010-11-04). Ethics for a Brave New World. Crossway Books. ISBN 978-1-58134-712-8. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'"
106.Jump up ^ Koukl, Gregory. "The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?". Stand To Reason. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
107.Jump up ^ D'Souza, Dinesh. "Answering Atheist’s Arguments". Catholic Education Resource Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
108.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God is not Great. p. 230.
109.Jump up ^ "Richard Dawkins Responds to Papal Attack on Atheists", The Atlantic Wire, September 2010.
110.Jump up ^ Wilson, David B. (2002). "The Historiography of Science and Religion". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
111.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science"
112.Jump up ^ Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. p. 195. "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the ‘warfare between science and religion’ and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science"
113.Jump up ^ Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited."
114.^ Jump up to: a b Ferngren, Gary (2002). "Introduction". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. x. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "while [John] Brooke's view [of a complexity thesis rather than an historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind"
115.Jump up ^ Russell, Colin A. (2002). "The Conflict Thesis". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is perceived by some historians as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science."
116.Jump up ^ Blackwell, Richard J. (2002). "Galileo Galilei". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
117.Jump up ^ Larson, Edward J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
118.Jump up ^ Rupke, Nicolaas A. (2002). "Geology and Paleontology". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
119.Jump up ^ Hess, Peter M. (2002). "Natural History". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
120.Jump up ^ Moore, James (2002). "Charles Darwin". In Gary Ferngren. Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
121.Jump up ^ Barker, Peter; Goldstein, Bernard R. (2001). "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". Osiris. Science in Theistic Contexts 16. University of Chicago Press. pp. 88–113.
122.Jump up ^ Smith, Crosbie (1998). The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone Press.
123.^ Jump up to: a b Berlet, Chip. "Following the Threads," in Ansell, Amy E. Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, pp. 24, Westview Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8133-3147-1
124.Jump up ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
125.Jump up ^ "MPs turn attack back on Cardinal Pell". Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-06-06.
126.Jump up ^ "Pope warns Bush on stem cells". BBC News. 2001-07-23.
127.Jump up ^ Andrew Dickson, White (1898). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. p. X. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anaesthetics.
128.Jump up ^ "IAP Statement on the teaching of evolution" (PDF). the Interacademy Panel on international issues. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-01. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
129.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-45040-X.
130.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (2007). The God Delusion (Paperback ed.). p. 77.
131.Jump up ^ Evans, John (2011). "Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (4): 707–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01603.x.
132.Jump up ^ Baker, Joseph O.; Public Understanding of Science (April 2012). "Public Perceptions of Incompatibility Between "Science and Religion"" 21 (3). pp. 340–353.
133.^ Jump up to: a b Keeter, Scott; Smith, Gregory; Masci, David (2011). "Religious Belief and Attitudes about Science in the United States". The Culture of science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge. p. 336,345–346. ISBN 978-0415873697. "The United States is perhaps the most religious out of the advanced industrial democracies." ; "In fact, large majorities of the traditionally religious American nevertheless hold very positive views of science and scientists. Even people who accept a strict creationist view, regarding the origins of life are mostly favorable towards science." ; "According to the National Science Foundation, public attitudes about science are more favorable in the United States than in Europe, Russia, and Japan, despite great differences across these cultures in level of religiosity (National Science Foundation, 2008)."
134.Jump up ^ Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart (2011). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-107-64837-1.
135.Jump up ^ Christopher P. Scheitle (2011). "U.S. College students' perception of religion and science: Conflict, collaboration, or independence? A research note". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell) 50 (1): 175–186. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x. ISSN 1468-5906.
136.Jump up ^ "The Social Structure of Islam: Being the Second Edition of The Sociology of Islam", p. 198, by Reuben Levy, year = 1957
137.Jump up ^ "Fatwa issued against Kashmiri all-girl band". Times of India. 4 February 2013.
138.Jump up ^ "BBC ON THIS DAY : 14 : 1989: Ayatollah sentences author to death". BBC (bbc.co.uk). 1989-02-14. Retrieved 2010-04-12.
139.Jump up ^ Hossain, Rakeeb (2007-08-18). "Fatwa offers unlimited money to kill Taslima". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
140.Jump up ^ "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies)". Retrieved 2007-10-30. "There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
141.Jump up ^ Moreno-Riaño, Gerson; Smith, Mark Caleb; Mach, Thomas (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8.
142.Jump up ^ Jensen, Gary F. (2006) Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look, Journal of Religion and Society, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University, Vol. 8, ISSN 1522-5658
143.^ Jump up to: a b Kerley, Kent R.; Matthews, Todd L.; Blanchard, Troy C. (2005). "Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4): 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x.
144.^ Jump up to: a b Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca (2005). "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3): 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x.
145.^ Jump up to: a b Regnerus, Mark D.; Burdette, Amy (2006). "Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics". The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1): 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x.
146.Jump up ^ for example, a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
147.Jump up ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use" Criminal Justice and Behavior 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; doi:10.1177/0093854806293485
148.Jump up ^ For example: Albrecht, S. I.; Chadwick, B. A.; Alcorn, D. S. (1977). "Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16 (3): 263–274. doi:10.2307/1385697.
Burkett, S.; White, M. (1974). "Hellfire and delinquency:Another look". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (4): 455–462. doi:10.2307/1384608.
Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the "true" relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
Cochran, J. K.; Akers, R. L. (1989). "Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (3): 198–225. doi:10.1177/0022427889026003002.
Evans, T. D.; Cullen, F. T.; Burton, V. S.; Jr; Dunaway, R. G.; Payne, G. L.; Kethineni, S. R. (1996). "Religion, social bonds, and delinquency". Deviant Behavior 17: 43–70. doi:10.1080/01639625.1996.9968014.
Grasmick, H. G.; Bursik, R. J.; Cochran, J. K. (1991). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's": Religiosity and taxpayer's inclinations to cheat". The Sociological Quarterly 32: 251–266. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00356.x.
Higgins, P. C.; Albrecht, G. L. (1977). "Hellfire and delinquency revisited". Social Forces 55: 952–958. doi:10.1093/sf/55.4.952.
Johnson, B. R.; Larson, D. B.; DeLi, S.; Jang, S. J. (2000). "Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth". Justice Quarterly 17: 377–391. doi:10.1080/07418820000096371.
Johnson, R. E.; Marcos, A. C.; Bahr, S. J. (1987). "The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use". Criminology 25: 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00800.x.
Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
149.Jump up ^ Baier, C. J.; Wright, B. R. (2001). "If you love me, keep my commandments":A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38: 3–21. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001001.
150.Jump up ^ Conroy, S. J.; Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). "Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students". Journal of Business Ethics 50 (4): 383–396. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025040.41263.09.
151.Jump up ^ e.g. a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organizations
152.^ Jump up to: a b c "Religious people make better citizens, study says". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes – including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers."
153.Jump up ^ Campbell, David; Putnam, Robert (2010-11-14). "Religious people are 'better neighbors'". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives."
154.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur. "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving".
155.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. "Religious faith and charitable giving", Policy Review, Oct–Dec 2003.
156.Jump up ^ Will, George F. "Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists", Washington Post, 27 March 2008; Page A17
157.^ Jump up to: a b Gose, Ben. "Charity's Political Divide", The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 23 November 2006.
158.Jump up ^ Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, Basic Books, 27 November 2006. ISBN 0-465-00821-6
159.Jump up ^ Stossel, John; Kendall, Kristina (28 November 2006). "Who Gives and Who Doesn't? Putting the Stereotypes to the Test". ABC News.
160.Jump up ^ "Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians", The Barna Update, The Barna Group, 11 June 2007.
161.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
162.Jump up ^ "The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" (archive copy at the Internet Archive), The Barna Group, November 3, 2003 ("The Barna Update: Morality Continues to Decay" – Summary version posted on the Barna website)
163.Jump up ^ "And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own existence."- Arthur Schopenhauer -On Religion: A Dialogue
164.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books, 2006. Print. Pp. 25, 28, 206, 367.
165.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Dawkins. "Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion". The God Delusion.
166.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Is Religion Child Abuse?". God is Not Great.
167.^ Jump up to: a b "Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.".[dead link]
168.Jump up ^ Cooperman, Alan (2002-06-20). "Anti-Muslim Remarks Stir Tempest". The Washington Post.
169.Jump up ^ Daragahi, Borzou (June 11, 2008). "Yemeni bride, 10, says I won't". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 February 2010.
170.Jump up ^ "Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom". Fox News. 2010-04-10.
171.Jump up ^ "Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding". CNN. 2010-04-09.
172.Jump up ^ "CNN article on 12 year old bride death". 2009-09-14.
173.Jump up ^ "Yemeni minister seeks law to end child marriage". BBC News. 2013-09-13.
174.Jump up ^ Compton, Todd (1997). In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-085-X.
175.Jump up ^ Hirshon, Stanley P. (1969). The Lion of the Lord. Alfred A. Knopf.
176.Jump up ^ D’Onofrio, Eve (2005). "Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States". International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19 (3): 373–394. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028.
177.Jump up ^ "When Elton met Jake |". The Observer url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1942193,00.html (London). 13 November 2006.
178.Jump up ^ [1] quote - "Hinduism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does not view homosexuality as a religious sin."
179.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (10 April 2006). "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". Los Angeles Times.
180.Jump up ^ Eke, Steven (28 July 2005). "Iran 'must stop youth executions'". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-02.
181.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip (2004). "A New Face for Racism & Fascism". White Supremacist, Antisemitic, and Race Hate Groups in the U.S.: A Geneaology. Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2007-02-18.
182.Jump up ^ "Ostensibly scientific": cf. Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The social science encyclopedia (1996), "Racism", p. 716: "This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of 'scientific techniques', to sanction the belief in European and American racial superiority"; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to sociobiology (1998), "Race, theories of", p. 18: "Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history"; Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. "In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist" (p. 151); Paul A. Erickson,Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: "Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism".
183.Jump up ^ Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1-56858-219-6.
184.Jump up ^ "The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities: Fundamentalist Mormon Communities" (PDF). Utah Attorney General’s Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. June 2006. p. 41. Retrieved 29 June 2010
185.Jump up ^ "Hate Groups Map: Utah". Southern Poverty Law Center.
186.Jump up ^ "Civil Rights Movement in the United States". MSN Encyclopedia Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. Retrieved 3 January 2007.
187.Jump up ^ "Religious Revivalism in the Civil Rights Movement". African American Review. Winter 2002. Retrieved 2007-01-03.
188.Jump up ^ "Martin Luther King: The Nobel Peace Prize 1964". The Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
189.Jump up ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0312webwcover_0.pdf
190.Jump up ^ Ahmed Obaid, Thoraya (6 February 2007). "Statement on the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation". United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Retrieved 2008-02-08.
191.Jump up ^ http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain_fixed.pdf
192.Jump up ^ "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?". Middle East Forum. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
193.Jump up ^ "The Christian Men’s Oldest Prejudice: Misogyny, Hate Or Fear?". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
194.Jump up ^ Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966.
195.Jump up ^ Ruthven, K. K (1990). "Feminist literary studies: An introduction". ISBN 978-0-521-39852-7.
196.Jump up ^ Holland, Jack (2006). Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice (1st ed.). New York: Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1823-4.
197.Jump up ^ Polly Toynbee. "Polly Toynbee: A woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is in jeopardy - Comment is free - The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 September 2014.
198.Jump up ^ "Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
199.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2006). Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Grove Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8021-4383-0.
200.Jump up ^ http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-hitchenss-god-not-great-99357
201.Jump up ^ "Why do Western Women Convert? - Standpoint". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
202.Jump up ^ "Feminist Philosophy of Religion". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
203.Jump up ^ "Man's Dominion: The Rise of Religion and the Eclipse of Women's Rights - Google Search". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
204.Jump up ^ Teijlingen, Edwin R. (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers. p. 46.
205.Jump up ^ Eller, Cynthia (1995). Living in the lap of the Goddess: the feminist spirituality movement in America. Beacon Press. pp. 170–175.
206.^ Jump up to: a b c Melzer, Emanuel (1997). No way out: the politics of Polish Jewry, 1935–1939. Hebrew Union College Press. pp. 81–90. ISBN 0-87820-418-0.
207.Jump up ^ Poliakov, Léon (1968). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 153. ISBN 0-8122-3766-8.
208.Jump up ^ Collins, Kenneth (November 2010). "A Community on Trial: The Aberdeen Shechita Case, 1893". Journal of Scottish Historical Studies 30: 75. doi:10.3366/jshs.2010.0103.
209.^ Jump up to: a b Shechita UK. "Why Do Jews Practice Shechita?". Chabad.org. Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
210.Jump up ^ Grandin, Temple; Regenstein, Joe M. (March 1994). "Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists.". Meat Focus International (CAB International): 115–123.
211.Jump up ^ Bleich, J. David (1989). Contemporary Halakhic Problems 3. KTAV Publishing House. "A number of medieval scholars regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty"
212.Jump up ^ Scherer, Logan (December 8, 2009). "The Cruelty Behind Muslim Ritual Slaughter". PETA. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
213.Jump up ^ "Treatment of animals: Islam and animals". BBC. August 13, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2012.
214.Jump up ^ "Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'". BBC News. 2003-06-10.
215.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great. pp. 155–169.
216.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara (1989). Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
217.Jump up ^ Ansell, Amy E (1998). Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3147-1.
218.Jump up ^ Schaeffer, Francis (1982). A Christian Manifesto. Crossway Books. ISBN 0-89107-233-0.
219.^ Jump up to: a b Barron, Bruce (1992). Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-53611-1.
220.Jump up ^ Davis, Derek H.; Hankins, Barry (2003). New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America. Baylor University Press.
221.Jump up ^ Davidson, Carl; Harris, Jerry (2006). "Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right's rise to power". Race and Class 47 (3): 47–67. doi:10.1177/0306396806061086.
222.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1989. Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.
223.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 0-89862-864-4.
224.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (March/June 1994.). "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence". The Public Eye 8 (1 & 2). Check date values in: |date= (help)
225.Jump up ^ Clarkson, Frederick (1997). Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage. ISBN 1-56751-088-4.
226.Jump up ^ In her early work, Diamond sometimes used the term dominion theology to refer to this broader movement, rather than to the specific theological system of Reconstructionism.
227.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine (11 February 2004). "The Despoiling of America". Retrieved 3 October 2007.
228.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2004. Blood Guilty Churches, 19 January 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
229.Jump up ^ Yurica, Katherine 2005. Yurica Responds to Stanley Kurtz Attack, 23 May 2005. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
230.Jump up ^ The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism By Chris Hedges, TheocracyWatch.
231.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris (May 2005). "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". Harper's. Retrieved 2007-04-11.
232.Jump up ^ Hedges, Chris, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Free Press, 2006.
233.Jump up ^ Maddox, Marion 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics, Allen & Unwin.
234.Jump up ^ Rudin, James 2006. The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us, New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
235.Jump up ^ Harris, Sam 2007. "God's dupes", Los Angeles Times, 15 March 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
236.Jump up ^ "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party", TheocracyWatch, Last updated: December 2005; URL accessed May 8, 2006.
237.Jump up ^ Martin, William. 1996. With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America. New York: Broadway Books.
238.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara, 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, New York: Guilford Press, p.213.
239.Jump up ^ Ortiz, Chris 2007. "Gary North on D. James Kennedy", Chalcedon Blog, 6 September 2007.
240.Jump up ^ Berlet, Chip, 2005. The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy. Retrieved 25 September 2007.
241.Jump up ^ Diamond, Sara. 1995. "Dominion Theology." Z Magazine, February 1995
242.Jump up ^ Anthony Williams (2005-05-04). "Dominionist Fantasies". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
243.^ Jump up to: a b Kurtz, Stanley (2005-05-02). "Dominionist Domination: The Left runs with a wild theory". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
244.Jump up ^ Kurtz, Stanley (28 April 2005). "Scary Stuff". National Review Online. Retrieved 2007-10-06.
Further reading[edit]
Mencken, H. L. (1930). Treatise on the Gods. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8536-1.
Russell, Bertrand (1957). Why I am not a Christian. Barlow Press. ISBN 1-4097-2721-1.
Ellens, J. Harold (2002). The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-99708-1.
External links[edit]
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization
The Science of Religion by Gregory S. Paul
The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum
Is there an Artificial God? by Douglas Adams


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Criticism of religion


































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Philosophy of religion











































































































































































































































































Portal
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Religion



























































































































































































































































































































































































































































Atheism template.svgAtheism portal
 

  


Categories: Criticism of religion
Irreligion
Antireligion

















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Bosanski
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Kiswahili
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 22 April 2015, at 03:31.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion