The answer is that all religious people that believe in an afterlife in theory should devalue this life (what religious people would call mortal life) compared to someone that believes it’s of the greatest value.

However, not all non-religious people would fall into the above category. It is very common for self professed atheist to believe in a higher power or cause that is above human life. (I.e. atheists are usually theists, but in a different way.) I do believe there are many non-theists that would more or less agree with religious people. It’s not hard to find people that would agree that laying your life down for a good cause, for example, is better than not laying your life down. So this muddies the waters on the question quite a bit because, from this sense, we are all religious people.

In fact, we’d generally consider someone that values their life above everything else a very very bad person.

Back to Tituba, while it’s true that there’s no evidence she told the girls stories, it was theorized even at the time that she did. However, that could be another perpetuation of the real cause of the incident (IMO): fear of the outsiders, those on the fringe of the community.

“Only if your neighbor isn’t Peter Singer”

Hold on, I had Peter Singer as a lecturer in philosophy for a semester at Monash University and I can assure you that he isn’t the monster some in the media make him out to be, plus he was generally respectful of us Mormons, our ideology and especially achievements in building Utah etc (he actually claimed to be an atheist jew!!?). Plus his beliefs are actually very reasonable when one gets down to the details even though I don’t agree with most of his cut off points in some theories.

“In a secular environment, human life has the highest value. Its preservation is the unquestioned bastion of our humanity”

I’ve encountered in my secular environment that it is the ‘quality of life’ which has the highest value, above even the preservation of life itself.

But I can’t see how one can save souls without having the highest degree of respect and admiration for human life, for me at least.

Back to your topic though.
While I recognize there was a religious component, it certainly wasn’t the main motivation. I don’t specifically know how a contrast creates minds ripe for mischief. If so, is my mind ripe for mischief because I understand the contradictory contrast between the wave/particle duality of light? I don’t think contrasts must weaken the mind, rather it was the entire scientific worldview that led to this huge breakdown of logic. It wasn’t pure religion that led was the means of the witch trials either, it was the false marriage of science and religion (e.i., Spectral Evidence) in the hands of the religious officials (who were incidentally also government officials).

From Wikipedia. (Notice the blatant copy and paste, just like you suggested!)
Economic context
Increasing family size fueled disputes over land between neighbors and within families, especially on the frontier where the economy was based on farming. Changes in the weather or blights could easily wipe out a year’s crop. A farm that could support an average-sized family could not support the many families of the next generation, prompting farmers to push farther into the wilderness to find land, encroaching upon the indigenous people. As the Puritans had vowed to create a theocracy in this new land, religious fervor added tension to the mix. Loss of crops, livestock, and children, as well as earthquakes and bad weather, were typically attributed to the wrath of God.

Wiki also describes the religious context: A puritan theocracy.

Social context
The patriarchal beliefs that Puritans held in the community added further stresses. Women, they believed, should be totally subservient to men. By nature, a woman was more likely to enlist in the Devil’s service than was a man, and women were considered lustful by nature. In addition, the small-town atmosphere made secrets difficult to keep and people’s opinions about their neighbors were generally accepted as fact. In an age where the philosophy “children should be seen and not heard” was taken at face value, children were at the bottom of the social ladder. Toys and games were seen as idle and playing was discouraged. Girls had additional restrictions heaped upon them. Boys were able to go hunting, fishing, exploring in the forest, and often became apprentices to carpenters and smiths, while girls were trained from a tender age to spin yarn, cook, sew, weave, and be servants to their husbands, mothers, and children.

This was also a fun quote:
Contrary to the folklore, there is no evidence to support the assertion that Tituba told any of the girls any stories about using magic.

Medical theories about the reported afflictions
Although it is not widely believed that the girls who made the original accusations were actually possessed by the devil, the cause of the symptoms of those who claimed affliction continues to be a subject of interest. Various medical and psychological explanations for the observed symptoms have nevertheless been explored by researchers, including psychological hysteria in response to Indian attacks, convulsive ergotism caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by the fungus Claviceps purpurea (which is the natural substance from which LSD is derived),[68] and an epidemic of bird-borne encephalitis lethargica. Other modern academic historians are less inclined to believe that the cause for the behavior was biological, exploring instead motivations of jealousy, spite, and a need for attention to explain behavior they contend was simply acting.

All of which leads me to a conclusion. While religion certainly plays a part, anything that professes some sort of morality will play that same role. In fact, even things that decry morality (e.i., atheism) represent their own form of morality (specifically that none exists). The problems with amorality have most recently been personified in “the dark knight” by two-face. All things can be twisted to fit for good and bad (evidenced by radical islamic extremists versus the peace-loving Muslim, evidenced by the fanatical MMM-er versus TBM, as evidenced by evil Nazi’s versus the loving Germans I’ve met before). Humanism, religion, amorality, atheism all can be twisted, and instead of arguing the generaly principle, we’ve witnessed an over-simplified non-contextualized argument that really doesn’t help us understand the problem any better. At least, it didn’t help me. A bad example ruins the argument for me.

But I think we certainly agree on this point: When we treat others as objects, rather than as people, we sin. Sinners are people. Liberals are people too! (Note I’m not equating the two).

I’ll take the curtain Bob.

Which raises the question– Why is it, NOYDMB, that ONLY the liberals do that? Crazy, isn’t it? And I know about crazy…..

“I suppose that what I find most dangerous, in agreement with your point, are causes that impassion people and cause them to treat others dismissively. Those causes could be liberalism, conservativism, religion, anti-religion, nationality or clannishness–any variety of causes can yield the same result.”

Well said, for a liberal.

If you had ever studied the Salem witch trials, you would know that the witch trials were merely a way of punishing those who had what the powerful people wanted. To take their land, to remove them from power. The hysteria of the witch trial was merely the opportunity, not the motive.

You continually set up false dichotomies. you portray religious people as thinking that the importance of saving souls to prolonging life as a 1000:1 importance, when in reality, most people probably view it as a 101:100. Of course it’s more important to make sure your soul is eternally saved, but that doesn’t mean human life isn’t important.

There is a sociological argument against suicide as well. Abandoning family and friends because life is too hard? Does that mean that people that accept this sociological argument don’t value life as much?

If you had studied anything about the Crusades, you would know that this was again a campaign about political and monetary gain. Europe was running out of room, felt the need to expand (reduce population) and they found an easy opportunity, “the infidels are in the Holy Land!” Again, the kool-aid keeps you from the perspective so that you can tip the scales in your mantra.

I haven’t studied as much about the inqiuistion and Islamic Jihad, but it frosts me to see libs taking things out of context to suit their crazy viewpoints.

A focus on the afterlife and eternal reward can ALSO equate to MORE focus on the here and now. It’s more of a reflection on the individual what it does rather than “religion.” I guess the same could be said for the person judging that, they see what they want to see. I see it as a cigar if that’s the only experience I have with it. I’m less of a perv if I only see it as a cigar.

The same can be true of social responsibility. Many take the principles of religion and say social responsibility becomes more important.

Suicide bombers.

Apologies if I’m repeating someone else’s response. Human Life should always every time go before Salvation of Souls- Hierarchy of Needs etc.. God can sort out all our souls in the Millenium. There is plenty of time to Save the Souls of the dead then.

Missionary work the same it should be based on Service the Ammon approach.

I think our church spends way too much time in programs in my heart of heart people don’t truly believe in or come up with a Justification to make them feel good about it.

I would like to see a complete turn around and become more of a Salvation Army service oriented church. Many say you can do both. But 20% of the members in the mission field do 80% of the work and they don’t have time or energy to do both and often feel unfulfilled.

religion is a worse neighbor than secular humanism?

Only if your neighbor isn’t Peter Singer or one of those angry anti-religion, politically progressive humanists who plaster the back of their cars with darwin fish and “Born OK the First Time” bumper stickers.

I just wanted Holden to know that because a person is born with pain and suffering, it doesn’t mean that we need to view the positive encouragement with cynicism. I don’t view the Brethren’s advice to me as dehumanizing, but ennobling. They offer us a way out. And yes, there was plenty of opportunity for me to turn that experience into pride and bitterness–as with any other debilitating condition. I don’t claim to know the difficulties of homosexuality in the Church, but I do know something about humanization under stressful times.

And if we really believe that there is any hope for any of us to relate to each other, then I can say that if religion can support an asthmatic in spite of drugs and imaginary rats and atrophied legs–in essence, humanize me–religion can humanize a homosexual in the most beautiful sense of the word.

Fwiw, I think people offer those sayings because they are scared or anxious (even if they don’t realize it) and don’t know what else to say. Saying things like “you’ll be blessed for it” probably makes them feel better. Otherwise, how could they deal with the dissonance of really bad stuff happening to good people?

That was not a plug for my post, I’m just really into dissonance theory right now.

Russell, I hope you find a way to let go of your bitterness and anger. I’m sure most, if not all, of the people who visited you were trying sincerely to offer whatever help they could – inadequately human and meager though it was.

Yeah. I have a beef with them too. While they are sitting in their pleasant pews, I was riding through a winter snow storm fighting for every breath of life. Then we slide off the road, only so we can be pulled out of the bank illegally by a snow plow (and probably a non-member driver too). And then the Church has the gall to tell me that it’s all for my good, that I will be blessed with additional empathy and love, even as I lay nearly breathless on a LifeFlight or as I writhe with pain from chest tubes. If it weren’t for the pilot’s ability to direct the plane through that little space in the clouds…well, my parents would have been planning my funeral.

Here’s the kicker: Oh, don’t worry, “the Brethren” say, you’ll be blessed in the end for it. It’s for my own good. “You can help others so much.” “These things shall give thee experience.” Sure, folks from the branch came to see me, told me how good of a job I was doing at recovering…but they didn’t know. All cliches…trite tropes that they had memorized from the wise-man-built-a-house-upon-a-rock days. They had the same deer-in-the-headlights look I had when I made my attempt to teach refugees in San Diego (who were we but distant AMericans to try to destroy their way of life/religion?). My decent-hearted visitors never had to “experience” the hallucinations of a stronger-than-heroin opiate. They never found themselves screaming for the imaginary rats to get off of their chest or for the dogs to leave the hospital room. While they’re talking about love, peace, and charity in their suits and skirts, nurses were restraining me shaking myself free from the bed. Oh they’re real keen on my life. Offer a token gesture of support, and then it’s back to Bain Capital for them…