- 2,533
- United Kingdom
Seriously? You can't make the connection?
They're not real.
Why is that a problem?
Sure. Religion is delusion. It makes people think all sorts of stupid and wrong things. But those stupid and wrong things, including any bigotry therein, are still thought alone and violate no rights.
I guess I just don't consider thinking stupid and wrong things is a real problem. Certainly not one for which intervention in religious practice is necessary.
I'm not big on the whole notion of thoughtcrime, in case you hadn't noticed, and I would have thought--for all your bitchfits about "political correctness" (Boo!)--you wouldn't be either. I suppose it's a standard to which you hold others but not yourself, which...I mean that doesn't surprise me. At all.
The individual is responsible for the violation of rights, but the religion may be a factor in the decision by planting the seed, or something much bigger.
You can see how attitudes can translate into harm here:
Religious‐based negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people among healthcare, social care and social work students and professionals: A review of the international literature
There is a dearth of research on how negative religious attitudes towards LGBTQ people inform professional practice. This paper reports on a scoping review of 70 selected studies from 25 different countries. It explores key issues and knowledge gaps regarding ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
There is a dearth of evidence about how religious‐informed attitudes towards LGBTQ people translate into practice. Carabez et al. (2015), reporting on a US study of nursing students, evaluated an LGBTQ teaching intervention, observing that more than 10% of the 112 participants ‘had religious values that might interfere with quality care’ (p.51). However, how they might interfere was not explained. Similarly, Aynur et al. (2020, p.1918) reported that many religious nurses in Turkey were ‘uncomfortable’ providing care to LGBTQ people, but how this affected practice was not discussed. Johnston and Shearer (2017, p.92), in the United States, noted that two medical residents (3% of the total sample) reported ‘that they would feel uncomfortable treating a transgender patient for personal, moral, or religious reasons’. Again, how this might affect practice was not explored.
Note that there is little evidence for it in this review, but it's not hard to see its manifestations in countries that are heavily religious.
Remove the brainwashing and you would probably see a reduction in violation of rights.
So we don't take a backward step, and make sure we only progress from a rights protection point of view.That's probably the primary factor in reformation which occurs naturally within adherence to various faiths; as individuals' lived experience changes, they tend to tailor their faith to fit that experience. And sure, fundies may look down on this, but they get to. Religions tend to leave fundies behind and I'd expect them to be bitter about it. Hard cheese.
So why would intervention be necessary?
Not in every case.I get that you're still of the belief that what people merely believe drives them to perpetrate harms against others and you're trying to convince me that's the case, but you should know that I still think that's just aggressively stupid.
I'd wager it plays a background role rather than being the sole driving influence more often than not, but I wouldn't know how to study it.
One thing I don't do is dodge questions - if they're brought up I respond."Which one?" they ask as they proceed to quote from a post that they'd previously dodged.
I only replied to @UKMikey's point (and not even his whole post) as I wanted to clarify my position.
Consider @Sprite's last post.I don't see why "it"* would be. I know you want to convince me it is but your efforts so far have been pathetic. You need better arguments than those with which you've been thrusting impotently for years.
*I actually listed two options. That's kind of key to the false dilemma (also false dichotomy or false binary) fallacy. But I think I understood what you meant.
By answering "yes and no" they are of the belief that it may influence a person's outlook. That may then lead to a rights violation.
What's the difference with violence??
Sorry, I'm confused by this.So you wouldn't know that it's pathological...or you purport to not know. Got it.
But if a faith puts a premium on "us vs them", is it not more culpable.Faith itself doesn't do it. Faith just is. Adherents to faith may do it.
You keep giving people too much credit than I think they deserve, and as a result are ignoring how powerful religion can be. People's psychology varies so much it's hard to predict how they'll behave given a reason to commit a rights violation.
I'm sure you're aware of the Milgram experiment. It shows how "normal" people can be driven to cause harm under certain situations.
Why can't religion be a driving force?
That's interesting, and may be because of the differences in UK vs US Christianity.Are we talking empirical data or personal experience? I certainly don't have access to the former and, in fact, I'm doubtful anyone does.
My personal experience is that Christians do it more than adherents to any other faith, but that certainly isn't to say that all Christians do it per my experience. My experience is that if Christians have done it, it's mostly been pretty innocuous, with only a couple instances where individuals were more aggressive. Of course that also isn't to say that Jews or any other religious adherents don't do it, but that I don't have personal experience with them doing it.