So In the US Catholics Charities are forced to end foster care on "moral" grounds

Going back to the original post... the church program's are only required to follow the law because they are recieving public money - Public money for public services; private services ( such as the one the Church would like to provide ) require private funding. I only see the church reacting to a budget cut, and don't see either side as doing anything wrong.

Interesting no? Martinez seems to play the bigot card well. Either he doesnt understand Catholics\Christians or he is purposely inciting hatred towards the catholic church.

Click to expand...

Or the RC's are being bigoted. This is exactly the same as refusing to put children in mixed race couple's home. It doesn't matter even slightly that they are basing their beliefs on religious teachings, it's still bigotry.

I agree with Corwin's point, though. It is their belief and it would be quite wrong to expect them to keep doing the foster care given that there are plenty of other groups that can pick up the slack without any serious disruption. If this were to cause a lot of harm to the foster kids then yes, I'm all for an outcry - but I just don't see any real harm coming from this move.

JemyM said:

Catholicism is a force of evil in this world. I am glad more and more people see that it's not good and leave the whole thing.

Click to expand...

I would hope that someone educated in sociology or psychology would be able to avoid making a patently false and inflammatory statement like this. People do not need religion to perpetuate evil. If we rid ourselves of religion tomorrow, I'm fairly certain that we would still find interesting ways, and excuses, for being horrible to each other. Religion, for a time, was a convenient shield that people hid behind in order to justify murder, torture, segregation, racism, bigotry, and war, but that excuse has been out of vogue for some time now. It is interesting that the concept of religion and it's roots in evil are brought up in nearly every one of these discussions, yet no-one seems to remember that Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism were secular justifications used by the pioneering Americans and Nazis, respectively, in order to rationalize the abhorrent attitudes and practices of both.

Furthermore, it must be stated that the use of Christianity in such a context shows a degree of ethnocentrism and lack of objectivity when in light of the fact that the majority of religiously incited acts of violence in the last half of the twentieth and first part of the twenty-first centuries have been from non-Christian cultures.

I only say this because some Secular Humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, are vociferously opposed to religion of any form, without understanding how religion works on a sociological level - how it integrates people, reinforces cultural norms, and insulates members from stressors that would be much more harmful on them if they were isolated. Yes, sometimes the norms and behaviors that religion espouses work in direct contrast to more progressive societal viewpoints, but that provides a steady and deliberate form of social evolution, instead of a rushed and potentially catastrophic one. There must be a Yin and Yang.

JemyM said:

Each distinctive moral discussion, such as drugs, need to be adressed while having the stable and beneficial society in mind. If the potential for reduction of these needs is great, then the drug might have to be prohibited. If there are exceptions then the drug needs to be regulated. Like all moral concerns, such ethics need to be established and evolved through rationality, empathy and experience, not by trying to adapt ancient ethics which was formed by a group that was highly unaware of what we know today. Moral issues are never clearcut and never simple.

Click to expand...

… Are you saying morality is relative to society? For all that you write it seems to be a round about way of saying morality is relative.

This is one of several red herrings that may pop up in a debate with catholicism. A Red Herring is meant to lead the debate in a different direction, such as presenting an ethical issue which is unrelated to the topic. It can be compared with beginning to speak about abortion in a debate on whether it's right or wrong for Ugandians to exterminate their homosexuals.

You provided a link regarding "social effects of pornography". Pornography is an entirely different issue than the kind of sex regulation promoted by the Catholic Church such as hunting homosexuals, creating myths about "homosexual acts", disencouraging sex education, disencouraging the support of safe sex, lashing out on sex before marriage, lashing out on public (non-sexual) nudity or partial nudity and other forms of hysteria regarding anything sexual etc.

That said; "Pornography" is an extremely generic term, which is why the wikipedia article is useless. It could as well have been called "social effects of eating food". Without knowing the details about what "pornography" means we have no means of interpreting the studies. Also, there are two common mistakes in reading social statistics that you should be aware of;
1. Hen or the Egg problem. Do you become a rapist of consuming more porn, or do you consume more porn because you are a rapist. If the former was true, rape would be rampart today and very rare when porn wasn't common. This is not the case.
2. Ignoring the 3rd factor. Eating icecream (1) is statistically consistent with drowning (2). The reason is that both increase during summer (3).

The coolest part with statistics and sociology is that you can show deterministic data. You can also show that some social statistics stay the same, despite the addition of new social phenomenons. Many populations try to blame the newcomer for issues that been there long before the newcomer came into the landscape. The attempt to pin violence on videogames/movies/rock music/immigrants/pornography etc have always been caused by fallacious associations, the sociological data give a very different image about what's going on.

The entire fear of sex have it's roots in platonic philosophy and the idea that the body is an evil creation, which also makes any form of pleasure wrong. This was later absorbed in Christianity in which this was associated with satan or with sin.

This line of thought make people less likely to understand the body and how the body works. With the insights of psychology we today have a very rich understanding of drives, needs and human behavior in which Catholicism represent an outdated and distorted perspective that when promoted instead of actual science lead to social problems that can be avoided.

Click to expand...

Should i make another thread on this?

Captain Buzzkill said:

I would hope that someone educated in sociology or psychology would be able to avoid making a patently false and inflammatory statement like this.

Click to expand...

I created a definition of good and evil and I then applied it. When doing so, Catholicism ends up in the "evil" spectrum". When I took the extra time to try to define a consistent definition of the concept to work with and declare it's results, I expect more than be called "false" and "inflammatory". I try very hard to have a consistent and logically intact worldview and do not make up conclusions like that as I go along and hurl them left and right in order to cause offense. If you do not believe I am right, I would prefer that you poke hole in my definition of good/evil since it's that definition that logically lead to my conclusion.

Captain Buzzkill said:

People do not need religion to perpetuate evil. If we rid ourselves of religion tomorrow, I'm fairly certain that we would still find interesting ways, and excuses, for being horrible to each other.

Click to expand...

Captain Buzzkill said:

It is interesting that the concept of religion and it's roots in evil are brought up in nearly every one of these discussions, yet no-one seems to remember that Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism were secular justifications used by the pioneering Americans and Nazis, respectively, in order to rationalize the abhorrent attitudes and practices of both.

Click to expand...

Captain Buzzkill said:

Furthermore, it must be stated that the use of Christianity in such a context shows a degree of ethnocentrism and lack of objectivity when in light of the fact that the majority of religiously incited acts of violence in the last half of the twentieth and first part of the twenty-first centuries have been from non-Christian cultures.

Click to expand...

This is essentially the same argument three times;
* If I do not do wrong, someone else does, thus doing wrong is justified
* So what if I did wrong, someone else did, thus my actions were justified

So to your main argument I will simply reply; two-things-wrong-does-not-make-one-thing-right.

Try again. Until then I will address some of the claims you made.

People do not need religion to perpetuate evil.

The best way to cause people to not develop morally is to program them early on into believing that the question "what is good" is already answered, and that "good" is a form of entity that isn't rooted in human potential itself. Such ideas acts as thought-stoppping clichés that while blocking out the reflection on whether or not something is just and good also blocks moral development. This is the most effective way to create the situation in which people who would in every other place be good, to do vilefully evil acts. Recognizing this issue do not give any such beliefs justification, rather the opposite. We should try to water out all of those ideas and we have already done so with many of them.

So this is not an argument for religion; to the contrary, it just confirms what I am already saying.

Social Darwinism were secular

In the history of ideas, Social Darwinism is a development of Augustines predestination theology with Calvin as the middleman. It's essentially the same idea and if you wish to see this thought alive and well you will find it in Christian Communities who believe they have a jolly good time because God chosen them, best recognized in Prosperity Theology.

Social Darwinism were secular justifications used by the pioneering Americans and Nazis

German nationalist socialism was an irrational coctail of German culture at the time, in which Lutheran protestantism played an essential role. Most nationalist philosophies build on ideas about the people in which also the peoples religion is incorperated.

The "Final Solution" is inspired by passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their lies" which was used in the Nazi partys propaganda. To those who read up on Social Darwinism and Eugenics it actually makes no sense in relation to german National Socialism since in that belief system the jews was placed high up on the ladder. For a throughout examination on how Christianity worked within the Third Reich I recommend the book Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Strong comparisions can be drawn between the Nazis "Positive Christianity" to the American religious right movement and groups such as the Southern Baptists. Religion and Nationalism are often difficult to set apart and especially protestant moderate Christianity have a high chance of developing nationalist mentalities. Most upspring nationalist parties within Europe today are Christian as well.

it must be stated that the use of Christianity in such a context shows a degree of ethnocentrism

I do not see religion as an ethnicity. It's a thought idea based structure, not an origin-based structure.

All attempts to compare my line of thought with ethnocentrism and or racism will fail. When I divide, I always divide ideas, never people. Individuals can jump between ideabased groups, not between ethnicities. I am acute aware of this since I am among those who moved between ideabased communities more than once.

the majority of religiously incited acts of violence in the last half of the twentieth and first part of the twenty-first centuries have been from non-Christian cultures.

I already replied to this and said two-things-wrong-does-not-make-a-right, but I would also like to point out that violence in the world have dropped to microscopical numbers in the past 300 years. It should also be noted that the ruling ideology of Germany, Italy and Japan had strong religious overtones. Germany have already been mentioned, but the Italian Fascism in it's core ideology is very hard to distinguish from Catholicism and in Japan you had Shinto. They were even before muslims when it comes to suicide bombing thanks to religious beliefs.

Finally, I belong to those who claim State Communism to be a modern religion. From an anthropologist perspective it have all the essential components to be recognized as one.

Captain Buzzkill said:

I only say this because some Secular Humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, are vociferously opposed to religion of any form, without understanding how religion works on a sociological level - how it integrates people, reinforces cultural norms, and insulates members from stressors that would be much more harmful on them if they were isolated. Yes, sometimes the norms and behaviors that religion espouses work in direct contrast to more progressive societal viewpoints, but that provides a steady and deliberate form of social evolution, instead of a rushed and potentially catastrophic one. There must be a Yin and Yang.

Click to expand...

The alternative are secular democracies in which human rights are protected by the constitution, coupled with a good public school system as well as strong support for communities of all interests, including RPG's.

I propose this as the alternative to the above mentioned ideologies.

For spiritual seekers and those who wish to get answers to existential questions (like me) I propose philosophy and becoming a researcher.

So the alternatives are already out there. Religion just acts as a placeholder to block out solutions that better adress the issues that religions was aimed to adress.

Damian Mahadevan said:

… Are you saying morality is relative to society? For all that you write it seems to be a round about way of saying morality is relative.

Click to expand...

A short way of saying it is "people do not know what's good for them". This includes you and me.

As a psychology student I unlike moral philosophers see morality as objective with human nature as it's source. Culture actually means "to cultivate" related to growth. Culture grows from human nature.

The common objection to this is that "but humans do evil deeds". That is true, but it is an objective fact that actions create reactions and one cannot determine the properties of water by examining a single water molecule.

Humanity organize itself by aligning to their environment (including social) in deterministic patterns. Most do so without any conscious thought or reason behind their alignment. We act and react and we form structures automatically. When two societies integrate with eachother, we realign into new structures.

The prime difference between socities is cummulative experience, how to best adress it's concerns. When two societies integrate, their experience is put together, and with the added experience, the new society becomes even better at adressing it's concerns as before.

The majority of humanity will strive to fulfill their needs and the only way to do so is to have a stable society. This is not a choice, it's an objective predictable pattern that repeat itself throughout any society in the world. It is for example objective that the idea that one can kill another human being for no good reason is one that cannot possible build a stable society, which is why murder is prohibited in every known culture in the world.

It is predictable that genocides may happen, just as the reaction to a such genocide is predictable. This is not relative.

Ponder for awhile on what we call the "Western Civilization". The "Western Civilization" is the coalition of a large amount of socities with different backgrounds. In order to make those socities function together, certain rules had to be made and we wouldn't have worked without those rules. Through democracy and science the society continue to adjust slowly in order to be even more stable and even more beneficial to it's citizens human nature.

Damian Mahadevan said:

Should i make another thread on this?

Click to expand...

I actually need to study

JemyM said:

A short way of saying it is "people do not know what's good for them". This includes you and me.

As a psychology student I unlike moral philosophers see morality as objective with human nature as it's source. Culture actually means "to cultivate" related to growth. Culture grows from human nature.

The common objection to this is that "but humans do evil deeds". That is true, but it is an objective fact that actions create reactions and one cannot determine the properties of water by examining a single water molecule.

Humanity organize itself by aligning to their environment (including social) in deterministic patterns. Most do so without any conscious thought or reason behind their alignment. We act and react and we form structures automatically. When two societies integrate with eachother, we realign into new structures.

The prime difference between socities is cummulative experience, how to best adress it's concerns. When two societies integrate, their experience is put together, and with the added experience, the new society becomes even better at adressing it's concerns as before.

The majority of humanity will strive to fulfill their needs and the only way to do so is to have a stable society. This is not a choice, it's an objective predictable pattern that repeat itself throughout any society in the world. It is for example objective that the idea that one can kill another human being for no good reason is one that cannot possible build a stable society, which is why murder is prohibited in every known culture in the world.

It is predictable that genocides may happen, just as the reaction to a such genocide is predictable. This is not relative.

Ponder for awhile on what we call the "Western Civilization". The "Western Civilization" is the coalition of a large amount of socities with different backgrounds. In order to make those socities function together, certain rules had to be made and we wouldn't have worked without those rules. Through democracy and science the society continue to adjust slowly in order to be even more stable and even more beneficial to it's citizens human nature.

Click to expand...

I think I understand now. You are saying that "true" morality is reached via combined experience. So cannibalism of the dead and beastiality shoudlnt be considered an evil deed because there is no real harm?

I actually need to study

Click to expand...

Ok lets leave that topic for a later date.

Damian Mahadevan said:

I think I understand now. You are saying that "true" morality is reached via combined experience. So cannibalism of the dead and beastiality shoudlnt be considered an evil deed because there is no real harm?

Click to expand...

Morality is the single individuals attempt to be "good" but the attempt alone isn't neccessary good. We might initially think something is good, only to found it was bad after making the experience. We therefore have ethics, which are guidelines developed through combined experience. The more we learn, the more our ethics will improve. Unlike a moral relativist I say that this development is absolute rather than relative as it cannot happen any other way than the way it does.

Ethics is information-based. Different ethics is caused by different experience. The Western Society now consists of countries that share their experiences. Information runs free and everyone can participate in the same experiences. It therefore makes no sense of looking at the ethics of a Swede and the ethics of a Dane as both form their ethics on very similar sources, similar experiences, similar information. There are a greater variation of Danes than there are differences between how the average Dane and Swede think. The reason Sweden do not go to war with the Danes today is because we know it's far more beneficial to both societies to teamwork. We did not know this 300 years ago but now it's a widespread insight.

We talked about the worldwars before in this thread. One of the greatest achievements after the worldwar was the establishment of the universal human rights. This document was formed on the experiences made by humanity. It couldn't have happened before, because we lacked the experience. It came as a predictable reaction to the state in which the global society was in. It came just in time and it's difficult to imagine a world in which it wouldn't have happened just then. But our insights are still growing and even the universal human rights have started to show it's age. The more experience we grow, the more refined our insight in what must be grows as well.


On Cannibalism.

First it should be noted that the most common ritual in Christianity is symbolic cannibalism. The consumption of the masters flesh and blood in order to live an eternal life. This is even more profound in the catholic idea of transubstation, in which it's stressed that it's not only symbolical, the bread and wine is physically changed within the body into be actual human blood and flesh.

It's therefore interesting how westerners came to the conclusion that cannibalism is wrong. Truth is that cannibal tribes are rare, second it's not true that they hunt down humans and eat them, rather they eat their ancestors after they passed away. This is done because they believe that the strength, power, lifeforce and knowledge of the ancestors had to be transfered through the consumption of their bodies (they actually consume the bones mashed into a fine powder).

So is cannibalism wrong?

Most westerners feel disgusted by the idea, then they go and play "consumption of Jesus" every sunday. It seems that the disgust is added by conceptions about the act, so that if the culture teach a child it's ok, it will be ok to that child. Yet beyond this disgust there's no real harm caused by doing it. But our combined experience can easily tell us that we do not need to consume our grandparents in order to preserve their wealth or insights. Spending too much time and effort on a meaningless ritual might be wrong.


Is beastiality wrong? This have had quite a debate in Sweden in which most things sexual is legalized unless it can be clearly proven it causes harm. Some claims it doesn't harm the animals at all, others claim it harms the animals, but at the moment it leans on the former. Now we must think about what is needed for a law. Laws costs resources and we have a finite amount of resources. It costs money to hire police officers and other personnel to uphold a law and the time of these people is limited. Having them preoccupied with something that is clearly less harmful than stopping a gangwar outside a local bar, is a misuse of resources. For this reason, laws shall not be created just for the sake of having them. One quick way of focusing your resources on where it counts is to remove victimless crimes. In Sweden it have been decided beastiality is a victimless crime and it's therefore not prohibited so that the resources is used in crimes with higher potential harm to society.

If we are to judge which forms of sexuality is wrong I will place beastiality lower than for example coprophagia (eating feces) which due to the bacteria have a direct potential harm. I will also place rape, pedophila and prostitution in potentially harmful acts, but acknowledge that there's a debate on what actually qualifies as such deeds that haven't been solved. It is an irony that the Bible objects to Beastiality but doesn't object to these harmful sexual acts at all, despite the fact that it's so easily proven they are harmful!

I agree with that.

Very interesting.

JemyM said:

I created a definition of good and evil and I then applied it. When doing so, Catholicism ends up in the "evil" spectrum". When I took the extra time to try to define a consistent definition of the concept to work with and declare it's results, I expect more than be called "false" and "inflammatory". I try very hard to have a consistent and logically intact worldview and do not make up conclusions like that as I go along and hurl them left and right in order to cause offense. If you do not believe I am right, I would prefer that you poke hole in my definition of good/evil since it's that definition that logically lead to my conclusion.

Click to expand...

I didn't see your definition of good / evil beyond the Catholic church's attitude toward sexuality. Which I happen to agree with. What I take issue with is the polarizing language that you use. There are a lot of things that religion does to harm society, but there are also a lot of things that religion does to help. What I don't think helps the dialogue between science and religion is the notion that one must choose one or the other. Calling a religion evil is no more valid to me than calling science evil - I've heard both, and I agree with neither.

The rest of your points are well taken, and I agree to an extent. I do, however, see a delineation between using your religion as an excuse to perpetuate evil, and using nationalism / fear / racism, rooted as it may be in cultural / religious undertones. Additionally, I stand by my claim that if religion were removed from the equation, people would still find some way to attempt to avoid culpability for their actions.

Captain Buzzkill said:

There are a lot of things that religion does to harm society, but there are also a lot of things that religion does to help.

Click to expand...

This is an expression that can be heard once in awhile.

Imagine this; You always had a red car. You used this quite alot. You may even say a good vehicle to have is a red car. But what then have the "red" to do with it, more than it's the color of the only car you are familiar with? This is pretty much the argument that religion itself is good. Once we dissect whats actually good, the features unique to what's called religion have very little to do with the good.

The easiest put argument against the "good religion" is the one proposed by Hitchens;
* Name a good moral action that can only be credited to religion.
(Name a good thing with the car that can only be credited to it's color)

The benefits of "religion" is neither unique to religion nor is the beleifs itself neccessary for those benefits. Sweden for example have a democratic culture instead of a religious culture. Our values and principles do not depend on lojalty to religions. In this culture it is believed that all should be within and participate within the democratic society. An ideal member of the community is thus not someone who belong to a religious faction, but one who participate in the society to do what must be done, earning their respect by being nice people. American anthropologists tend to be baffled by the fact that we almost have no policecars and no need for guns and this even if we are 85% atheist.

Thing is, people just do not argue against what they think is good. Good is naturally perceived as good and thus supported without the need of sanctioning the act through laws, cultural support and regulation. Have you ever heard someone defend their right to do a good act with claiming it's religious? And have you ever head someone defend religion by pointing at the stuff that is commonly not perceived good? No. People know what's universally recognized as good or bad thanks to their reason or empathy.

By generalizing the word "religion" and see religion as something essentially good and neccessary for those good benefits to come, all one does is to sanction the bad stuff that is unique to belief systems that rejected critical thinking and an emperical/rational worldview. It's only in this state that an action which is commonly seen as unreasonable, bad, evil and uncessary is sanctioned and protected. It's in this state that homophobic groups can enjoy taxbreaks and people can mutilate their babies sex organs because they think it's a good thing.

This is the result of giving respect to religion instead of giving respect to the act, the danger of the word religion and the danger of talking about it as essentially good.

No one would in their right mind use the word politics or sports in that manner. It is self-evident that acts exists within both that have to be judged on their own and the fact that something is politics or sports doesn't protect a bad act where as good politics and sports motivate itself simply by being good, not for being politics and sports.

Captain Buzzkill said:

What I don't think helps the dialogue between science and religion is the notion that one must choose one or the other. Calling a religion evil is no more valid to me than calling science evil - I've heard both, and I agree with neither.

Click to expand...

There is no dialogue between science and religion. There is the idea that we should learn truth through experience, and those who believe truth have already been established. People who engage in science and preserve a religious identity do so by only paying the identity lipservice. This is just a rule of adaptation. Sane people strive for adaptation prior to identity.

Captain Buzzkill said:

The rest of your points are well taken, and I agree to an extent. I do, however, see a delineation between using your religion as an excuse to perpetuate evil, and using nationalism / fear / racism, rooted as it may be in cultural / religious undertones.
Additionally, I stand by my claim that if religion were removed from the equation, people would still find some way to attempt to avoid culpability for their actions.

Click to expand...

Look at history man. All the past irrational dichotomies have died out and lost power in public discourse. Neither nationalist, fascist, communist, sexist and racist arguments work anymore. They lack foundation, they lack ground, and there are no reasonable arguments for those anymore. Science is today heavily regulated through ethics and politicians loose their job if they do not fulfill the requirements that their position depends them to fulfill. In every position throughout society you have to defend your position through reasonable arguments to get your point across to the public to be able to do whatever it is you would like to do.

Religion is the last and final cultural discourse in which we do not demand reasonable arguments. It is the last place we are asked to respect religion rather than the acts within.

Captain Buzzkill said:

What I take issue with is the polarizing language that you use.

Click to expand...

I'm more concerned with the fallacy of claiming objective definitions for something that's innately subjective. I doubt there's anything under the sun that somebody, somewhere can't passionately and convincingly argue is perfectly normal, regardless of what the rest of the world might think. As soon as he claimed to define good and evil, the rest was pretty pointless.

Captain Buzzkill said:

Additionally, I stand by my claim that if religion were removed from the equation, people would still find some way to attempt to avoid culpability for their actions.

Click to expand...

You continue to stun me with our philosophical similarities. One of us is clearly a clone.

I maybe be biased, but I am stunned and appreciative of JemyM's power of argument and logic. Please continue! (And teach me how to think this clearly.)

dteowner said:

I'm more concerned with the fallacy of claiming objective definitions for something that's innately subjective.

Click to expand...

"Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery".

I gave a source which is none of these. Try again.

dteowner said:

As soon as he claimed to define good and evil, the rest was pretty pointless.

Click to expand...

A theory is a map, a framework to navigate by. It is not a mirror of the surface that is mapped. If such models were pointless, we wouldn't work.

I'm appreciating Jemy's logical analysis, rather than the negative nihilistic and fatalistic responses.

Many people are not rational, and act according to their emotions without thinking, and that's why they claim everything is subjective…

I read all of this and I ... well I am just in awe of JemyM. Not much more that I can add that wouldn't sound shallow in comparison.

But do appreciate the article and the discussion - was well worth reading.

I used to think that JemyM argued with a rigid attitude but i was wrong based on this discussion. I assumed he was going to argue against beastiality and cannibalism being wrong and i was pleasantly surprised.

I dont do them because they are wrong according to the bible but i will concede there is nothing really wrong with them if you think about it on a natural level. Kudos JemyM.

JemyM, i take issue with this:

The best way to cause people to not develop morally is to program them early on into believing that the question "what is good" is already answered, and that "good" is a form of entity that isn't rooted in human potential itself. Such ideas acts as thought-stoppping clichés that while blocking out the reflection on whether or not something is just and good also blocks moral development. This is the most effective way to create the situation in which people who would in every other place be good, to do vilefully evil acts. Recognizing this issue do not give any such beliefs justification, rather the opposite. We should try to water out all of those ideas and we have already done so with many of them.

So this is not an argument for religion; to the contrary, it just confirms what I am already saying.

Click to expand...

You remember how you wrote abotu the chicken and the egg scenario for sex and pronography in the media? The same applies here. I was a far more hateful person before religion than after atleast for Christianity one of the key tenants of the religion is to not judge others and it promotes mercy and sacrifice. These 3 things are probably unique to Christianity(correct me if i am wrong) and really cannot be learned by academia. It has to be taught via parents or society or religion. The problem however is that evil people can be Christians and use the bible out of context for their own evil deeds. If a person wants to hate they will despite all the boundaries you give them.