Atheism more moral?

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

You know as well as anyone that there is such a thing as bad religion just as there have been bad atheistic ideologies.

The worship of Satan, for example, may be what you have in mind? Such a religion does not fit into the normal definition of religion. Satan worship is pathological … sick.

All atheistic ideologies are bad because they reject God, who is the fountain of all goodness. Some atheists are pathologically bad, true, downright sick, like the Marquis de Sade.

As to traditional mainstream religion, I don’t believe any of it is downright bad (some religions are more true than others). I do believe there are people who do not honor or live up to their own religious principles. But that’s quite apart from saying that religion is bad, and more so a matter of saying that some people are hypocrites and sinners. But it is not the fault of the religion per se that they are hypocrites or sinners. The Masters of the Inquisition were not following the teachings of our Lord.They were cruel men who abused their religion … and we believe certainly that the worst of them (even bishops and popes), without repenting their deeds, are now paying dearly for them. Again, that is not the fault of the religion taught by Christ, but rather a revolt against that religion

Yet religion offers a way to transcend hypocrisy and sinfulness. Atheism offers no such rescue. When an atheist is a sinner, there is no institutional way to encourage him to rise above his sins. Nor is there a vehicle by which, or a God from whom, he can seek ultimate forgiveness for wrongdoing and comforting reassurance that he can do much better with his life.

For these reasons alone I can understand the well documented tendency for the suicide rate among atheists to be higher than the suicide rate among religious people.

Religion offers hope and salvation. What does atheism offer? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Does it offer release from moral oppression? What is oppressive about striving for virtue?

 

[Leela]

The worship of Satan, for example, may be what you have in mind? Such a religion does not fit into the normal definition of religion. Satan worship is pathological … sick.

All atheistic ideologies are bad because they reject God, who is the fountain of all goodness. Some atheists are pathologically bad, true, downright sick, like the Marquis de Sade.

(Now do you see what I mean, Dave?)

How about ammending that to “all atheistic ideologies are [missing something important though not necessarily bad] because they reject God”?

As to traditional mainstream religion, I don’t believe any of it is downright bad (some religions are more true than others). I do believe there are people who do not honor or live up to their own religious principles. …

This and the rest is an example of the No True Scottsman fallacy. No true religion could be bad because if any were shown to be bad you simply say that it is not a TRUE religion.

You are doing nothing more than making good a defining criteria for being counted as a religion.

By the same argument, AntiTheist could say that Stalin was not a TRUE atheist because he had all sorts of superstitions and promoted worship of the State as a god.

Why not agree that there are lots of ways of being religious and that they are not all good?

Why not agree that there are lots of ways of being which are not religious and admit that they are not all bad?

Yet religion offers a way to transcend hypocrisy and sinfulness. Atheism offers no such rescue.

AntiTheist might point out that yellow shirts offer no such rescue either. Wy would you expect them to?

When an atheist is a sinner, there is no institutional way to encourage him to rise above his sins. Nor is there a vehicle by which, or a God from whom, he can seek ultimate forgiveness for wrongdoing and comforting reassurance that he can do much better with his life.

An atheist can indeed seek to transcend hypocricy and sin and try to do what is right. Why do you think she can’t? And there are lots of institutional ways we have to encourage people to do right such as the family, friends, schools, and the criminal justice system.

Also, while an atheist won’t seek forgiveness from God, atheists frequently seek forgiveness from whoever they have wronged.

For these reasons alone I can understand the well documented tendency for the suicide rate among atheists to be higher than the suicide rate among religious people.

Religion offers hope and salvation. What does atheism offer? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Neither do yellow shirts. Does that mean we shouldn’t wear them?

Does it offer release from moral oppression? What is oppressive about striving for virtue?

People often seek realease from moral oppression in ways that are not religious.

 

[anode]

This, on the other hand, does smack of bigotry.

This is so stupid. You might as well say “history is full of war.” Uh, yeah! So what? How is this relevant?

My reference to the young women who died horrible early deaths, who were sanctified by the RCC, is a reference to the elevation of cruelty by* that atheist,* the Marquis de Sade (apparently–I’ve never read him and never will) with whom you appear to be obsessed. The RCC appears to be sending a message–“Look at these wonderful lives, you, young ladies, should emulate them!” I have two daughters whom I would never have exposed to the lives of these young women–The Carmelite nuns in particular, seemingly enamored of early deaths–who were martyred to the RCC. That’s what I mean by encouraging cruelty. The horrific revelations of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the RCC are also exquisite representations of cruelty wielded by abusers protected by a seemingly unassailable* religious institution. * These people. who were both men and women*, weren’t *atheists.

You point to a relationship to Hitler, Stalin, Mao in the 20th century, and imply a relationship between atheism and mass slaughter. These despots would not tolerate to opposition of religion to their domination–if it had been any other type of opposition, they wouldn’t have tolerated that, either.

But religion, when it has been in power, has done its own slaughtering–the RCC in the Middle Ages in Europe, Islam against Buddhist societies AND in the 21st century, where it may end some civilizations, if various Islamic societies get atomic weapons. True, it was harder for the RCC, way back then, murdering Albigensians and burning Jews–so inefficient–but they did it, all the same.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
An atheist can indeed seek to transcend hypocricy and sin and try to do what is right. Why do you think she can’t? And there are lots of institutional ways we have to encourage people to do right such as the family, friends, schools, and the criminal justice system.*

An atheist can indeed seek to transcend hypocrisy and sin, but there is nothing in atheism that encourages that, whereas encouragement can be found in religion, family, friends, schools, etc.

How about ammending that to “all atheistic ideologies are [missing something important though not necessarily bad] because they reject God”?

Why would such an amendment be in order? Am I supposed to give up my religion, which teaches that “the fool in his heart says there is no God”? And why is “missing something important” not bad, especially when it is the most important thing in the world … a loving relationship with our Maker?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anode

You seem to attribute remarks to Betterave that were mine. I’m sure he will overlook your mistake.

I’ve already answered your remarks earlier. The track record for atheistic governments in the 20th century is deplorable, far more so than any religious persecutions in the history of the world.

But religion, when it has been in power, has done its own slaughtering–the RCC in the Middle Ages in Europe, Islam against Buddhist societies AND in the 21st century, where it may end some civilizations, if various Islamic societies get atomic weapons.

The only country ever to use atomic weapons was the United States. The most famous person to publicly condemn their use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Pope Pius XII.

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Leela

We are not using the No True Scotsman fallacy when we say that the deplorable conduct of some so-called Christians is not truly Christian. Did Christ teach burning at the stake or hanging for religious differences? People who engaged in such activities were hardly Christlike, and were hypocrites to use the name of Christ in such a way. Many of them may be hanging and twisting in hell even as we speak.

Christ was not a torturer and killer. Nothing in the Gospels preaches any such thing.

By the way, the inventor of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, Antony Flew, was an atheist. He is now a theist. You may have heard?

 

[Leela]

We are not using the No True Scotsman fallacy when we say that the deplorable conduct of some so-called Christians is not truly Christian. Did Christ teach burning at the stake or hanging for religious differences?

I’m not sure who “we” is, but I was referring to your claim that the Inquisition was not an example of a way of being religious but an example of corruption of religion. While we agree that Inquisitionists were wrong about the teaching of Jesus, it is beyond doubt that they were acting out of religious belief however erroneous. The Inquisition is an example of a bad way of being religious. Likewise, nonbelievers like myself may admit that the way of being religious of an MLK was pretty darn good for democracy. Unfortunately there seem to be 1000 Jerry Falwells for every MLK, but that fact is not cause for me as a nonbeliever to say that there is no way for religion to be good. as you try to do with atheism.

It will be a tough sell for you to be convincing on your claim that atheists are always necessarily bad since there is not particular way that an atheist needs to be in order to be an atheist. You can say that they are lacking in an important belief but there is nothing preventing an atheist from behaving morally in the same way as any given believer. Or can you think of one moral act that a believer can do that atheist cannot do because her lack of belief in God?

People who engaged in such activities were hardly Christlike, and were hypocrites to use the name of Christ in such a way. Many of them may be hanging and twisting in hell even as we speak.

Since heaven and hell are concepts relating to the eternal (outside of time and place) rather than any point in time such as right now, this seems unlikely even within Catholic belief.

By the way, the inventor of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, Antony Flew, was an atheist. He is now a theist. You may have heard?

You seem to think that there is some sort of contest between atheists and believers going on for which you need to build a team. I freely grant that the vast majority of human beings have religious practices. My concern is bigotry toward that minority of people who do not have religious practices.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

How about ammending that to “all atheistic ideologies are [missing something important though not necessarily bad] because they reject God”?

Why would such an amendment be in order? Am I supposed to give up my religion, which teaches that “the fool in his heart says there is no God”? And why is “missing something important” not bad, especially when it is the most important thing in the world … a loving relationship with our Maker?

I was trying to help you not sound like a bigot, but I don’t know how to convince you that you ought to try not to sound like a bigot. In fact, if you really believe that all atheists are bad, then it is better that you are upfront about your belief.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Or can you think of one moral act that a believer can do that atheist cannot do because her lack of belief in God?

You won’t agree, of course, but prayer is a moral act that a believer can perform … an atheist cannot. Nor do we know exactly how many prayers have been answered for the good of mankind.

While we agree that Inquisitionists were wrong about the teaching of Jesus, it is beyond doubt that they were acting out of religious belief however erroneous.

What religious belief would that be? What passage of Scripture is that belief announced in? Unless you can find such a passage, you don’t get it that you sound like the bigot you are pretending not to be.

No one on our side has ever denied that some so-called Christians have abused their religion. Likewise with Islam, where some groups have hijacked the beliefs of that religion and pretended to find in them a rationale for 9/11.

 

[AntiTheist]

We have said that atheism enables immorality, or invites it, by removing commandments of the Almighty against immorality.

There’s quite a distinction between “enabling” and “inviting” (and certainly “encouraging,” as you suggest later in your post).

But even putting aside that inconsistency, I’ve already illustrated how atheism does not “remove” any behavioral moral injunctions, as an atheist is free to follow any of those commandments that he wants.

We’re done here.

While it is true that atheism does not cause sin, it is still a sin in itself, a sin against the Holy Spirit.

I deny the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and God the Father.

 

[Leela]

Or can you think of one moral act that a believer can do that atheist cannot do because her lack of belief in God?

You won’t agree, of course, but prayer is a moral act that a believer can perform … an atheist cannot. Nor do we know exactly how many prayers have been answered for the good of mankind.

Yes, will will disagree about the meaning of “moral” in some cases and about whether God gets convinved to do or not do anything because someone prayed. There is also the problem of defiining what is meant by prayer. Lots of atheists have meditation practices, for exmaple as well as a HUGE problem of defining what religion is as such. At any rate, your example indicates how hard it is to find something that atheists supposedly can’t do and no limit to the good that atheists can do, so there is no reason to think that all atheists are necessarily bad.

While we agree that Inquisitionists were wrong about the teaching of Jesus, it is beyond doubt that they were acting out of religious belief however erroneous.

What religious belief would that be? What passage of Scripture is that belief announced in? Unless you can find such a passage, you don’t get it that you sound like the bigot you are pretending not to be.

How about “suffer not a witch to live,” for example. I’m not expert enough on the subject to give you a deep history lesson, but the Church certainly believed it was justified theologically (see Aquinas for example) in using torture to extract confessions because the immortal soul is infinitely more important that the body. If someone could be saved eternal damnation by torturing them to get them to confess and be forgiven, it was considered the moral thing to do. These were mostly well-meaning people who carried out such heinous acts. Their logic was correct given their faulty premises.

No one on our side has ever denied that some so-called Christians have abused their religion. Likewise with Islam, where some groups have hijacked the beliefs of that religion and pretended to find in them a rationale for 9/11.

Here again is the No True Scottsman fallacy. The hijackers were practicing their religion as were the Inquisitors. Yes, but it wasn’t TRUE religion, right? Since TRUE religion is always good. All ways of practicing religion are good to you only because you’ve defined all ways of practicing religion that are bad as not TRUE religion.

I think this is an important issue because atheists often take the flip side of the same mindset in criticizing religion as such. Atheists should have no criticism of religion as such because there is no essence of religion to criticize anymore than there is an essence of atheism beyond mere belief and disbelief in one particular assertion, i.e., God exists. There are just lots and lots of ways of being religious as well as being ireligious–some good and some bad.

Best,
Leela

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Well, this question is one that does draw up some controversey. Now, we must inquire within the matter logically and philosophically. A Catholic must have a sense of a universal sense of moralty. That is, a Catholic is obligated to give ascent of reason to the teachings of the church. One who is catholic cannot debate whether abortion, contraception, or gay marriage is a sin or not. Those items have been solemnly been defined by the magisterium of the church. On the other hand, there is no atheistic “bible” or magisterium which gives a universal understanding of what morality is.Many non-believing philosophers from the past 2 centuries have asserted that no universal truth can be known. Yet, that very fact is a statement one needs to take as a universal truth, so the propositon falls apart. A non-beleiver is free to say either A or B is moral. One may say A is moral while another may say B is not. One may say both A and B or immoral, but the non-believer has no gauge on what to measure it to. Thus, the non-beleiver is stuck within a quagmire when it comes to morality due to the fact morality cannot be defined in that beleif system.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Yes, will will disagree about the meaning of “moral” in some cases and about whether God gets convinved to do or not do anything because someone prayed. There is also the problem of defiining what is meant by prayer. Lots of atheists have meditation practices, for exmaple as well as a HUGE problem of defining what religion is as such. At any rate, your example indicates how hard it is to find something that atheists supposedly can’t do and no limit to the good that atheists can do, so there is no reason to think that all atheists are necessarily bad.

All this proves is that you have no conception of prayer as a moral act that can produce stunningly important consequences for individuals and for the world at large. It is not a matter of not being able to find things atheists can’t do that Christians can do. It is a matter of finding things that Christians ordinarily do that atheists ordinarily do.

Where are atheist charities, atheist hospitals, atheist soup kitchens, atheist orphanages, atheist etc.? But you will hardly ever find a city without Christian ones.

*Since TRUE religion is always good. *

Finally, you got it right!

A man is not a poet if he does not write poetry. A doctor is not a doctor if he does not heal. A teacher is not a teacher if he does not teach. You can call yourself anything you want to call yourself, but if you do the opposite of what you call yourself, you are a liar. Anyone who calls himself a doctor and spends his career killing babies is not a doctor. Anyone who calls himself a teacher and spreads lies is not a teacher. Anyone who calls himself a Christian, then burns people at the stake, is not a Christian. And anyone who says that Christians believe in raping, pillaging, and killing is a liar. Any atheist might believe in it and still be an atheist, but no Christian can believe in it and still be a Christian.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

UnworthyApostle

*A non-beleiver is free to say either A or B is moral. One may say A is moral while another may say B is not. One may say both A and B or immoral, but the non-believer has no gauge on what to measure it to. Thus, the non-beleiver is stuck within a quagmire when it comes to morality due to the fact morality cannot be defined in that beleif system. *

Exactly so. Atheism is paralyzed when it comes to a consensus of right and wrong. That is because atheism is individualistic … “I deny God!” There’s nothing else to say for atheism. Because atheism requires no other stand than defiance, there is no reason for atheists to agree about anything else.

 

[anode]

anode

You seem to attribute remarks to Betterave that were mine. I’m sure he will overlook your mistake.

I’ve already answered your remarks earlier. The track record for atheistic governments in the 20th century is deplorable, far more so than any religious persecutions in the history of the world.

But religion, when it has been in power, has done its own slaughtering–the RCC in the Middle Ages in Europe, Islam against Buddhist societies AND in the 21st century, where it may end some civilizations, if various Islamic societies get atomic weapons.

The only country ever to use atomic weapons was the United States. The most famous person to publicly condemn their use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Pope Pius XII.

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Leela

We are not using the No True Scotsman fallacy when we say that the deplorable conduct of some so-called Christians is not truly Christian. Did Christ teach burning at the stake or hanging for religious differences? People who engaged in such activities were hardly Christlike, and were hypocrites to use the name of Christ in such a way. Many of them may be hanging and twisting in hell even as we speak.

Christ was not a torturer and killer. Nothing in the Gospels preaches any such thing.

By the way, the inventor of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, Antony Flew, was an atheist. He is now a theist. You may have heard?

There was not a single avowed atheist --there weren’t any–in* any *branch of our government who condemned the dropping of the bomb–and there was virtually no one in the US–except a few Quakers–who opposed it. How many Christian denominations or Catholic churches, bishops, priests, religious-- *publicly condemned the dropping of the bomb? Oppenheimer’s comment that “the US had known sin” was verbally slapped down by Harry S. Truman, a God-fearing Christian, and helped lead to Oppenheimer’s downfall. It was nice for Pius to come out publicly against the bomb after it had been dropped and peace declared. Many wish that he would have publicly *condemned the destruction of the Jews, as well.

Atheists are motivated to make their world as good as it can be, because there *is *no other. There is no heaven or hell. It doesn’t matter if criminals and felons are burning in hell for all eternity; that doesn’t help their victims. Most victims don’t want their torturers to burn for all eternity, anyway; they just want justice in the present.

The crimes of the 20th century appear worse because so many people were involved, but there were many fewer around when religions were able to slaughter only thousands–hundreds of thousands for Islam in the east, maybe millions. Tyrants like Elizabeth I executed Catholics whom she perceived as traitors--the pope having publicly called for her assassination made it difficult to be a Catholic in England–but It’s a lot worse when those in power representing a * religion* slaughter their subjects, in an especially horrific way. The RCC hasn’t lived down The Inquisition or its track record in other slaughters, or the behavior of some of its staunchest supporters like Bloody Mary–who burned “only” 350 people or so during her short reign. The RCC will take a similar age to live down the current evidence of the decades-long physical and sexual abuse scandal that is unfolding.

It isn’t important who converts to what. As some else has posted, most prominent scientists are atheists. So what? Most atheists have ‘converted’ from some sort of religion. Most non-Catholic churches, including Quakers and Unitarians, have large percentages of their congregations who converted to their denomination from something else, often Catholicism.

 

[reggieM]

… prayer is a moral act that a believer can perform … an atheist cannot. Nor do we know exactly how many prayers have been answered for the good of mankind.

That is right and it fully refutes the idea that “atheism is compatible with every moral system”. Atheism compells immorality and evil since it makes prayer impossible (or requires a logical contradiction to offer prayer).

So, atheism removes moral injunctions and is therefore evil (by Catholic standards) on that account.

The First Commandment is forbidden by atheism.
The First and Greatest Commandment as affirmed by Christ is forbidden by atheism.
Atheism requires the vices of impiety and blasphemy.
Every atheist gives his or her highest possible love to a created-being or entity. This is idolotry.

In a similar way – is humility even possible in the atheistic worldview?

Some will say, “yes, I am humbled before the universe”.
But what is the universe (in atheism) except a collection of matter and energy?
Thus, being humbled before inanimate nature is a degradation of humanity.

This is at the core of the immorality taught by atheism – that humanity, in its essence, is equal to inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious, purposeless physical nature.

Here is Abp. Ullathorne from his Little Book of Humility and Patience explaining the immorality of atheism:

The love of God is our spiritual life; it makes the will good, the affections good, the soul good, and the work of the soul good. Without the Charity of God we are nothing. Woe, then, to that false science which puts matter before spirit, sense before conscience, darkness before light and the creature before God, and professes to find the cause of light and love, those sublimest gifts of the eternal charity of God, in the lowest and least spiritual elements of His creation. It is an awful proof of the extent to which cultivated intellects, lost to charity, can be gained to pride, and of the utter perversion of that light of intelligence which their minds have received from God.”Woe to that false science which puts matter before spirit”.

If we had no greater joys than the world can give the body, or the body give the soul, we should be poor creatures indeed, nothing but animals. If we had no greater enjoyment than the material scientists can give us, we should be unhappy creatures. Poring into matter until they lose sight of their immortal souls, they materialize their souls, and wish to materialize us. Losing the power of ascending from the creature to the Creator, by **an immense abuse of their intelligence **they drown their souls in their senses, cast a shadow of gloom and sadness over the world, and do their best to make it a dreary habitation for immortal souls.

… The children of the world who live for themselves, know nothing of the enjoyments of the children of grace who live for God. Bent upon the things beneath them, their enjoyment comes from nothing that is equal to their spiritual nature; and what they do enjoy contains the seeds of sadness and decay. Loving but mortal things with an immortal soul, they pervert the order of their nature until their desires contradict their wants. The flowers of their gladness fade and die, and the fruits of sadness come in their place.

 

[Leela]

UnworthyApostle

*A non-beleiver is free to say either A or B is moral. One may say A is moral while another may say B is not. One may say both A and B or immoral, but the non-believer has no gauge on what to measure it to. Thus, the non-beleiver is stuck within a quagmire when it comes to morality due to the fact morality cannot be defined in that beleif system. *

Exactly so. Atheism is paralyzed when it comes to a consensus of right and wrong. That is because atheism is individualistic … “I deny God!” There’s nothing else to say for atheism. Because atheism requires no other stand than defiance, there is no reason for atheists to agree about anything else.

Since, as you say, “there is no reason for atheists to agree about anything” other than their common doubt about God’s existence, then there is no cause to make any generalizations about what all atheists must be like beyond whatever follows directly from this one belief.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anode
*
The crimes of the 20th century appear worse because so many people were involved, but there were many fewer around when religions were able to slaughter only thousands–hundreds of thousands for Islam in the east, maybe millions. Tyrants like Elizabeth I executed Catholics whom she perceived as traitors–the pope having publicly called for her assassination made it difficult to be a Catholic in England–but It’s a lot worse when those in power representing a religion slaughter their subjects, in an especially horrific way. The RCC hasn’t lived down The Inquisition or its track record in other slaughters, or the behavior of some of its staunchest supporters like Bloody Mary–who burned “only” 350 people or so during her short reign. The RCC will take a similar age to live down the current evidence of the decades-long physical and sexual abuse scandal that is unfolding. *

Well, if you want to list the crimes of Catholics, they pale next to the crimes of atheists in the 20th century alone. Atheists commit suicide more often than theists as well. This is completely documented and beyond dispute. Suicide, as Chesterton wisely noted, is the destruction of the universe.

Moreover, you cannot name all the good things atheists have done, whereas the good things the Catholic Church and other religions have done have done are well documented throughout history.

Live with it and stop pretending that atheism is morally superior to theism.

 

[Leela]

Anyone who calls himself a Christian, then burns people at the stake, is not a Christian. And anyone who says that Christians believe in raping, pillaging, and killing is a liar. Any atheist might believe in it and still be an atheist, but no Christian can believe in it and still be a Christian.

I was hoping one of your fellow Catholics would respond to this since it would be more appropriate to be educated by one of your own. The situation we were discussing is the Inquisition. There were in fact Catholics who believed that torture and killing were justified because of the danger of heretics to their own souls and the souls of others. Aquinas famously argued for the morality of killing and torturing for this purpose. Not only was Aquinas considered a Christian, he is one of the most important Catholic thinkers in history. He was wrong, of course, in his theological justification for killing and torture, but it was a religious argument. Hence, all ways of being religious are not good.

You don’t get to say that if someone’s ways of being religious are not good that they are not really being religious. What you are supposed to say when someone points out that many people’s ways of being religious including those of many Catholics are bad is to say , “of course that is so. The Church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Since, as you say, “there is no reason for atheists to agree about anything” other than their common doubt about God’s existence,* then there is no cause to make any generalizations about what all atheists must be like beyond whatever follows directly from this one belief.***

On the contrary; by opening a Pandora’s Box of possibilities, all kinds of evils will fly out and attack the one who opens it.

When you are a theist there are certain things you must believe and certain other things you may not believe. But when you are an atheist you can believe anything you want to believe. This is a recipe for moral anarchy and stupendous immorality. If you don’t think so, read the Marquis de Sade’s Dialogue between a Dying Man and a Priest. The Marquis specifically recommends atheism as a pathway to all kinds of immorality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There were in fact Catholics who believed that torture and killing were justified because of the danger of heretics to their own souls and the souls of others. Aquinas famously argued for the morality of killing and torturing for this purpose. Not only was Aquinas considered a Christian, he is one of the most important Catholic thinkers in history. He was wrong, of course, in his theological justification for killing and torture, but it was a religious argument. Hence, all ways of being religious are not good.

Surely the motives of Aquinas for inflicting pain are not the same as the motives of the Marquis de Sade, who took pleasure in the pain he inflicted.

We are talking about an error in the way of thinking of Aquinas that is not consistent with what Christ would have taught. People must accept God freely and love him without coercion. But I can hardly put Aquinas in the same pack of wolves as those that run with the infamous Marquis de Sade.

Can you?