Badmike wrote:
But then again Stalinism is ALSO responsible for millions of deaths....and in only 50 years of history. Let's don't even get into Mao's "purges".  Religious fanaticism can't be blamed for all the world's massacres.  

Mike B.

benjoshua wrote:
I think Stalin believed more in himself and power than communism.  He believed in communism early on and during his rise to power, but that faded with age.  Hitler was...umm..on drugs...not that smart...and uh...Hitler.  Still, I'm not sure, especially towards the second half of his reign how much he and his minions were really into Nazism instead of power and themselves.

One of the more interesting genocides in history is one most of you have never heard of, but it is described in detail in the book, "King Leopold's Ghost."  Fascinating and terrible.  Anyway, King Leopold of Belgium in the 1800's realized that the middle of Africa was unclaimed by any other country and he set out to "colonize" it.  What he really wanted was to increase Belgium's status and financial status.  He and his henchmen(he never traveled to Africa) created Congo and raped the land for all it was worth.  First it was ivory but later on was rubber.  Along the way it is estimated that his policies killed between 10-12 million people.  King Leopold was roughly twice as bad as Hitler.  And King Leopold and his PR machine was spouting the whole time that they were there to save the savages.  Like hell.  Again, power and greed were primary driving forces resulting in death and destruction.

I personally think corrupted religion has more to do with evil than religion.  Religion can be blamed for a lot of bad, but a lot of good too.  It's easy to find loads of examples of bad religion.  And some are so ludicrous, they make you laugh or puke or hit something.  I am against that hypocrisy, evil and pompousness.  Don't need it, like it or want it.

However, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst?  Just because something bad might happen, is the best approach to just believe neutrality or nothing?

benjoshua wrote:
Change is inevitable.  And I agree, all organized bodies, whether religious or not become corrupted.  Many start out great, some really great, but one of the common downfalls in all of them is the increasing influence of money and the decreasing influence of morals, ethics and original principles.

But, do you judge a religion, or an -ism, or a movement by the best it has to offer or the only the worst?

Charles G. wrote:Is the promise of "national healthcare" or "social security" or any these other products of the economic illiterati really any different from blandishments about getting a bunch of virgins if you martyr yourself, or suffering hell-fire if you don't Believe in the One True Way?

mandalaymoon wrote:If a guy's aim is sexual gratification, why would he want a virgin anyway?  They complain and whine, and have no idea what they're doing because they have no experience and it hurts for them.  Guys who want a virgin never had one in the first place so they don't know what they're really getting into.  For a wife or girlfriend, I can understand wanting a virgin because he could teach her "good sex" over the long term, but for a quick tryst, a virgin is a terrible choice.  Give me an experienced, expert, and disease-free whore any day.  

Alright... that should take this thread in a different, and more interesting, direction...