But they always do force it in the aggregate. Even in the US and in the age of reason, federal funding of stem cell research was curtailed by the holy Bush administration (he spoke to god, don't you know) because of some stupidly arbitrary and religious belief that once a sperm and egg meet, the immediate result is a soul-bearing human being. Meanwhile, countless people await modern science to make headway due to all manner of suffering. The list goes on. And even something so silly as some assholes who want the commandments displayed in court rooms. Do I really give a shit about the first few commandments which have been correctly characterized as a protracted throat clearing by a vain god? You have just become desensitized to the continually attempted forays and volleys of encroachment. Meanwhile, history keeps repeating itself in one form or another.
"But they always do force it in the aggregate." False, they do not always force it in the aggregate. Please understand that you are making sweeping generalizations, and all I have to do is show a single time when the generalization does not hold to render your argument logically wrong because of the use of a generalization fallacy. Learn to make more moderate arguments free of the absolute and false claims, and your arguments will appeal to reason. When you take a soapbox of reason, then spout what is not actually reasonable...it doesn't have the impact I think you are looking for.
your view of christian preaching is immature and gravely mistaken. I doubt you could find any preacher today saying you could be saved one minute and go out and be a mafia hitman the next and still be saved. No thinking person who reads the good news thinks that Jesus's propitiation, for our sinful lives is a license to be corrupt. And while many people who say they are Christians are not going to be saved, even ones who might be are still sinners. lets look at one which impacts most at some point. Eventually a Christian begins to feel wrong about pre marital sex... and figures that he better marry his girlfriend or breakup with her. From the outside he looks to be a sinner and he is, but we really do not know where he is on the journey... and in the end we do not know how God is going to judge him. Now you should be able to spot a mature Christian by his fruit... but everyone Christian or not still falls short of the mark.
All recorded history supports the generalization. (I trust you understand what "in the aggregate" means.) Isolated examples or imaginary exceptions to the rule for the sake of argument are just that.
http://www.centralcal.com/christ9.htm "The answer is, you can be guilty of all the sin in the world and still be saved." All you have to do is sin, then repent, sin and then repent, binge and then purge...and you have the get out of jail Jesus card that is preached to this day...just as long as you feel guilty, you can sin as much as you want, and rationalize the sin because you are a sinner. If this were not the case, then we would not see what we see in America...a "Christian country" where sin is rampant on every level. Sinning freely, then feeling guilty, is not behavior modification...it is just like an alcoholic who drinks, then feels guilty the next day...then drinks to ease the pain of the guilt. It is not the "way" of Jesus Christ. SIN NO MORE was/is the directive...
It remains a generalization fallacy. "All recorded history supports the generalization." Again, it is a generalization fallacy. Why? Because you are arguing to an absolute conclusion. You are not saying "Organized religion can be dangerous." No, you are saying Organized religion is dangerous. That is an absolute pronouncement, not a moderate reasonable position. If you were to couch your terms in more moderate methods, you can make a reasonable argument...but seriously, you are coming off as just another extremist on a mission from non God.
It is a position based on precedent throughout the entirety of recorded history. Why should I be moderate in my description of the effects of religion on innocent lives throughout history when such effects were anything but moderate? Yes, I know, "This time it's different."
one of the most repulsive tenets of christianity is the idea that a criminal like hitler, if he said he believed jesus was god before he died, would go to heaven while the jews he murdered would go to hell to be tortured forever because they do not believe jesus was devine.
Still absolutist. Is there a "tendency" for like minded people who share a common belief to act politically? Yes. Do they always do so? No. Have there been totalitarian movements devoid of a God concept at the basis of their self righteousness? Yes. So your argument is flawed, because even though there is a human tendency by many to gravitate to absolutist self righteous thought and movements, religion is not the cause of these movements. Religions can be used by men to control the masses, but religion by no means is the only method used to control the masses and guide them to totalitarian and extremist thinking and actions. Your argument is flawed, please review it and moderate it...it will become more effective.
Religion is the tool, because it requires the suspension of reason, which unscrupulous leaders find very useful. The greatest of atrocities were perpetrated by the most fanatical of believers to the delight of their earthly masters, of which there has never been an absence. Would these believers have become such monsters had they not suspended their reason and, thereby, their humanity? Religion would not survive under the sustained light of free inquiry. That is why, historically, religion has required unyielding faith at the expense and suspension of free inquiry. "Leave your mind at the door."