Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Errata]

Hi Errata
Thanks for your thoughtful reply which explained a lot.
I am certainly not an "organised" or a "militant" atheist - indeed I don't class my atheism as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief. I have never found a faith system that convinced me of the truth of its claims and I suppose over the years that broadened out into doubting the very idea of a deity at all.
In the vast majority of cases people's beliefs are none of my business and of no concern to me - whether or not I agree with them worries me not in the least and I'm sure it, quite rightly, does not worry them. The only time I get galvanised by faith matters is when it insists on intruding itself into public life - into my life, to be selfish - and has what I consider to be a negative influence. When I see a member of the Westboro Baptist Church accosting people with their messages of hatred and homophobia, when I see Muslim extremists in the UK attacking the police with placards saying that "Europe is the cancer - Islam is the cure" or "Sharia Law for the UK" then I feel I have every right to be incensed. When I see the hospitality and resources - financial and medical - of this country being openly and cynically abused in the name of religion, then I, and many of my countyrymen, feel aggrieved at the apparent inability or unwillingness of our Government agencies to do anything about this.
I know many fine, kind and generous people of faith - I cannot understand their belief in a deity but that is entirely up to therm. In our history there have been many examples of exemplary people of faith who have effected social reform, from Lord Shaftesbury and Elizabeth Fry to Albert Schweitzer.
I hope this helps explain a bit more where I am coming from
Chris

One of the things I have found is that many of these objectionable "articles of faith" really kind of aren't. They are cherry picked phrases from a 2500 year old book to justify their own secular prejudice. Yes the Torah says that homosexuality is not good. Although the specific phrase that is often quoted to support this claim doesn't mean what people think it means, since most translations leave off a significant part of the verse. But the Torah also says mixing fibers is bad, eating shellfish is bad, etc. and nobody plucks those out to go on some religious rampage. There is no one in the history of ever who has said "gee, I don't have a problem with homosexuality personally, but the bible says it's bad so I'm going to go harass a soldier's funeral". And since the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't stand in front of Wal-Mart with signs saying "God Hates Poly-blends" they are hypocrites.

Islam is far more complicated, but even though these people are believers, that's not the issue. The West IS a cancer to the Middle East. Islam is not really the solution, and I think if you asked those people how they would fix it, they would not say that the world should convert to Islam. They would say the West needs to butt the **** out. But they are aware how Muslims are viewed by a lot of people in the West, they know that Sharia Law is about the most objectionable thing we can think of, and they are using it to provoke people. These people are super red hot pissed. And they have a right to be. Especially at the US and Britain. We have been using them as chess pieces for 100 years now, doling out countries, changing borders, indulging in "regime changes" to suit our own needs. And some of these people haven't had their own sovereign nation since 600 BC. Not every country profits from a democracy. Not every country that follows Sharia Law abuses it. And every time we change things, it goes cataclysmically wrong. And these people suffer the most. It is not surprising that people cling to the only true constant order in their lives, which is Islam. People get more religious when things are bad. And things are really really bad. It's easy to see why a 14 year old boy will strap a bomb to his chest when all he has to look forward to is living behind barbed wire, hungry, poor and completely powerless. We have an entire section of the globe that are cornered like animals. Why should we be surprised that they behave like cornered animals?

As for their leaders... I think the photos of Saddam Hussein's palace speak volumes. I think the legally sanctioned human trafficking on behalf of Saudi princes speak volumes. I think the Taliban's relationship with the Warlords speaks volumes. And Bin Ladin's relationships with drug dealers speak volumes. These men are more interested in power than religion. They do not practice what they preach. They do not obey the laws they set forth for others. And those who follow them know that. Most do not share their leaders idea of an ideal world. But they will pay lip service to it if it gives them the chance to have as much power as a gun or a bomb will get them. They will accept almost anything for a chance to get back at those they perceive to have wronged them. And I'm afraid in our case, we have in fact wronged them badly.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
Thanks for your thoughtful reply which explained a lot.
I am certainly not an "organised" or a "militant" atheist - indeed I don't class my atheism as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief. I have never found a faith system that convinced me of the truth of its claims and I suppose over the years that broadened out into doubting the very idea of a deity at all.
In the vast majority of cases people's beliefs are none of my business and of no concern to me - whether or not I agree with them worries me not in the least and I'm sure it, quite rightly, does not worry them. The only time I get galvanised by faith matters is when it insists on intruding itself into public life - into my life, to be selfish - and has what I consider to be a negative influence. When I see a member of the Westboro Baptist Church accosting people with their messages of hatred and homophobia, when I see Muslim extremists in the UK attacking the police with placards saying that "Europe is the cancer - Islam is the cure" or "Sharia Law for the UK" then I feel I have every right to be incensed. When I see the hospitality and resources - financial and medical - of this country being openly and cynically abused in the name of religion, then I, and many of my countyrymen, feel aggrieved at the apparent inability or unwillingness of our Government agencies to do anything about this.
I know many fine, kind and generous people of faith - I cannot understand their belief in a deity but that is entirely up to therm. In our history there have been many examples of exemplary people of faith who have effected social reform, from Lord Shaftesbury and Elizabeth Fry to Albert Schweitzer.
I hope this helps explain a bit more where I am coming from
Chris

[Errata]

I really don't care where the pressure comes from to teach Creationism in schools - I just think it a retrograde and unscientific step, akin to proposing that we teach pre Copernican cosmology in schools.

And I agree. I think teaching the various creation myths in school in a social studies class would be valuable in that it would be an introduction in to the religions of the people you are going to meet out in the world. I don't think Intelligent design should be taught at all, because it is not intelligent. And it's hypocritical to boot. But when such a movement is attributed to all religious people, regardless of the religion, that's kind of offensive. The same with the idea that all religious people think non religious people are going to hell. We don't have a hell. And we don't think people who are not of our faith are not "saved". That is not remotely part of our belief system, and never has been. Obviously other religions do have that belief. But not all. Technically not even most. We have the right to not be included in any statements regarding those issues. Remember that when you are saying that you have a problem with all religions because the fundamentalists of those religions think you are going to rot in hell for being an atheist, that simply isn't true. Jews don't think you are going to hell. Buddhists don't think you are going to hell, Wiccans don't think you are going to hell... We don't have a hell for you to go to.


If you honestly believe that Muslims do not proselytise then your experience is very different from mine - or maybe the situation in the UK is different.

I think it is different. Muslims here are still keeping very quiet. There is a new mosque not far from here that ha had to fight tooth and nail in order to exist. Every possible legal avenue of stopping construction has been tried, sabotage, taking shots at leaders and construction workers... Enough that they had to add a wall around the property in order to protect themselves. And of course now there are allegations that they put the wall up to hide their bomb making or whatever. As if anything in Tennessee could be considered a high value target. When I was younger I was invited to prayers with my Muslim friends. I think their understanding is that more Muslims would be great, but they aren't going to go out of their way to make it happen. And in fact as Jews we didn't even get bothered by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, because they saw the mezzuzah on the door and moved on. Except the Mormons were really nice guys so we let them store their boxes of books at our place, since our neighborhoods terrain was... daunting to say the least. We used to find them collapsed on our doortep exhausted and sweating their lives out.

Your comment about atheists sharing a belief system because they all believe there is no God is as simplistic and ultimately meaningless as saying that all persons of faith share a belief system because they all believe in a God.

Perhaps. As best I can tell, there are three types of atheist. The organized atheist, such as that group in Texas who sues anyone who references religion in public. The ones that went after Apollo 8 for quoting Genesis. It's not that I don't understand the aim, but in my eyes they are no different than the people freaking out about the idea of taking "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance. Clearly they have never been introduced to the idea that it is a fair compromise when no one is happy with it.

The second kind is the militant atheist. My best friend is one, and it's irritating, but kind of hilarious. He says "I don't believe in god, and you don't either." an then tries to tell me why I don't believe in god. And nothing he says is incorrect, but I keep telling him that a belief in god is a lot like paranoia. a: Unless you've felt it, you can't understand it and b:Paranoia is not a function of fact. It's a function of belief. But just because you are paranoid, doesn't someone isn't out to get you. Just because there is no factual evidence of god doesn't mean he isn't there. But he cannot reconcile the fact that I am rational, reasonable, liberal to an almost alarming degree, a huge fan of science, and a believer. I tell him it's because I have abetter imagination than he does, but it's a facetious explanation.

The third kind is like my fiance. He just doesn't believe. It doesn't bother him that he doesn't, it doesn't bother him that others do. His atheism is not a religion. He doesn't believe in god the way he doesn't like alfredo sauce. It's not a big deal. He doesn't refuse to attend religious functions, if I asked him to convert he probably would to make me happy, but I wouldn't ask it. It is such a non issue with him.


I also have a strong issue with faith schools and the way religion is "taught." I emphasise "taught" because it is actually in many instances inculcated into young children as unquestionable truth - that is not teaching. When I see the swaying figures of young boys learning the Koran or young Jewish boys reciting the Torah like automata my blood runs cold.

I'm not a huge fan of religious school either, but mostly because of the amount of discipline required of a child in those institutions. I think kids should be kids for longer than they give them. Otherwise, I have met any number of people who attended religious school and really benefited from it. Or were not harmed by it. My mother attended Catholic School her whole life. Even went to a Catholic nursing school. And then seven years later she converted to Judaism to marry my father. So evidently she overcame whatever training they gave her. Even now that they are divorced she is still Jewish. We have a Jewish day school here, kindergarten through sixth grade. We got any number of those kids in seventh grade. Really the only difference between them and the rest of us were that that could read and speak Hebrew. One girl in my grade came from Akiva, then became a pagan in tenth grade. All of the others except for two intermarried. The one thing they all have in common is that they are much more socially active than the rest of us. They all sit on charity boards. Basically, I always trust kids to rebel.Maybe it sticks, maybe it doesn't, but one thing I have learned about religious school kids is that when they break loose, they break loose with a vengeance. It's like Rumspringa, but with less cocaine.

But if one has problems with the very idea of theism then obviously comments will be addressed across the boundaries of faiths. That is not to ignore the fact that different faiths have their own unique histories, developments and moral codes, but if a faith is posited on the basis of a supreme being whose existence is not amenable to logical proof or even testing, then it would fall within my definition of a theist system.

Well, I confess I am not entirely sure why you would object to theists. I mean, I can totally see not being one. But for example, if I don't care that you are atheist, why would you care than I was Jewish? How does that harm you? And would you really have the same problem with a goddess who just changes the seasons and occasionally makes it rain as you would with a vengeful god demands his followers convert or kill under penalty of eternal torment? I mean, were I an atheist, gods would be like Star Wars characters. Not real, but still pretty impactful on it's audience. I mean, I don't have a problem with people who dress up like Mon Mothma, but I have a problem with people who don the slave Leia costume because I mean come on. Feminism happened. If someone thought Star Wars was real, but otherwise had a healthy relationship with reality, I swear to god I wouldn't care. Whatever gets you through the day, you know?

My life would be easier if I could manage to be an atheist. And I've tried. Not because atheism is easier than theism, but because it's easier than my particular relationship with god. Which is like having to live in a house with someone you are pissed off at and don't talk to for 34 years so far. And I tried to be other religions. But ironically, Judaism was the only religion I could find that allows me to have this messed up relationship with god without somebody demanding that I fix it. That and there is an old quote that says in order to be a righteous Jew you must act as though god doesn't exist. Which I am a total pro at. So it's nice to be successful at something.

I feel it necessary to add that while my original post followed yours, the only part of your post that I objected to was the "all religions" part. The rest of my issues came from posts scattered throughout the thread, because I got here late in the discussion. So I didn't object to you, just something you said, and threw in a bunch of other objections as well. Since I was in the neighborhood so to speak.

[Robert]

Hi Errata

That's an interesting reply, and I must confess I have always liked the apparently bolshie attitude of Jews to their god. The ending of the Book of Job was a bummer, but on the other hand there's a lovely story - I cannot remember where it's from - in which god loses an argument with some rabbis. The argument ends with some rabbi saying that according to such-and-such a text, they are commanded not to listen to voices. Someone asked god what he did when he heard that, and the answer was, god said "ah, my people have won."

[Limehouse]

Many thanks Chris.

[Chris Scott]

Not going to go in for multiple quotes, but just wanted to say - very good posts from Errata, Roy and Chris Scott. Obviously, I do not agree with all of you, but I like the quality of your debates.

I would like to add, if it is helpful in any way, that I am a Christian believer, but I do not have any problem at all with atheism, homosexuality, people of other faiths or, indeed, science. I even love the film 'The Life of Brian'!!

My faith is personal, it's about my relationship with God and how he works for me in my life. I share my faith with those who ask me about it, and with others of faith (often, I share with Muslims and Jews as I belong to a multi-faith discussion group at my place of work).

I don't concern myself with whether it's possible for the earth to have been created in seven days or whether the arc was big enough for two of every animal. I concern myself with prayer and with campaigning for a fairer world (I am also a socialist) and to a greater extent - I leave other people to live their lives in their own way (as long as it does not cause direct harm or offence to others).

Regards

Julie

A moving and humbling post for those of us who get caught up in the cut and thrust of this debate. If there were more like you in the world it would certainly be a fairer and better place
I don't share your politics or your faith but that doesn't matter - simple humanity ultimately urges us to hope for and work for a better place to live in
All the best
Chris

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
Many thanks for your response but I have to pick you upon a few issues :-)
I really don't care where the pressure comes from to teach Creationism in schools - I just think it a retrograde and unscientific step, akin to proposing that we teach pre Copernican cosmology in schools.
If you honestly believe that Muslims do not proselytise then your experience is very different from mine - or maybe the situation in the UK is different. Attempts to attract "non believers" to the faith are espoused openly and in a matter of fact way. In the UK there is a mainstream terrestrial TV channel - The islam Channel - which often has features about social and political issues. Commentators and presenters will often suggest ways in which Islam can be presented more sympathetically, not only to correct what the programmers perceive as misconceptions, but ultimately to attract more people to become Muslims. On a number of occasions when I have expressed reservations about Islam a whole programme of suggestions are rolled out. First, I am told, I am really not in a position to criticise Islam because I do not understand it. I was offered classes in Koranic studies and weekend "familiarisation" courses to get to know Islam which I politely declined. When I explained that I have read the Koran at some length we reach the next predictable step which is that I can only really appreciate the Koran if I read it in the original Arabic. I reject this logic completely, whereby only those within a movement or faith are allowed to make comments on it or raise concerns about it.
To be fair, I have been told similar things by some Christian denominations - mainly Jehovah's Witness and Mormons - but as I tell them I feel qualified to comment as I have a post graduate diploma in Theology, I have written a book called "The Claims of the Gospels" and am a long standing member of the BAS (the Bibilical Archaeological Society).

Your comment about atheists sharing a belief system because they all believe there is no God is as simplistic and ultimately meaningless as saying that all persons of faith share a belief system because they all believe in a God. People of faith are not fatuous or dumb by definition nor would I support any argument that held that. My argument is with those of faith who are uncritical, unthinking and simply accept a statement because they are told it is revealed truth and therefore it cannot be questioned. I also have a strong issue with faith schools and the way religion is "taught." I emphasise "taught" because it is actually in many instances inculcated into young children as unquestionable truth - that is not teaching. When I see the swaying figures of young boys learning the Koran or young Jewish boys reciting the Torah like automata my blood runs cold. I only quote those two faiths as the ones with which I am most familiar but in the not too distant past similar scenes would have been seen in a Catholic school as children learned required texts, and likewise the chanting of young monks in a Buddhist monastery or Hindu temple.
The actual manner of the attack on the young girl is of minor importance in that the main objective was to silence her. You are probably right in that if the Taliban had been able to lay hands on her and bodily take her they may well have used "approved" and Koranic methods of execution but the fact the attack took place on a crowded school bus limited their options. And the fact that the Taliban use gun and grenade to eliminate those they see as enemies of their faith or collaborators shows they are not that fussed about the methods used.
You say it is a mistake to talk about all faiths in the same way - I totally agree and that is what I was saying earlier. Just as it is a mistake to suggest that all objections to faith are the same or can be dismissed as some sort of heterogeneous atheist plot. But I cannot agree with the rest of your contention. You say if I have a problem with Islam, or Christianity or Sikhism or Buddhism etc etc then all those should be dealt with separately. But if one has problems with the very idea of theism then obviously comments will be addressed across the boundaries of faiths. That is not to ignore the fact that different faiths have their own unique histories, developments and moral codes, but if a faith is posited on the basis of a supreme being whose existence is not amenable to logical proof or even testing, then it would fall within my definition of a theist system. To take an extreme example my objections and observations about mainstream faiths such as Hinduism and Islam would be just as applicable to belief systems such as Satanism or Wicca, namely that they are based on the acceptance of the existence of a supranatural being whose pronouncements are conveyed to man by revelation and cannot be questioned.

[Limehouse]

Not going to go in for multiple quotes, but just wanted to say - very good posts from Errata, Roy and Chris Scott. Obviously, I do not agree with all of you, but I like the quality of your debates.

I would like to add, if it is helpful in any way, that I am a Christian believer, but I do not have any problem at all with atheism, homosexuality, people of other faiths or, indeed, science. I even love the film 'The Life of Brian'!!

My faith is personal, it's about my relationship with God and how he works for me in my life. I share my faith with those who ask me about it, and with others of faith (often, I share with Muslims and Jews as I belong to a multi-faith discussion group at my place of work).

I don't concern myself with whether it's possible for the earth to have been created in seven days or whether the arc was big enough for two of every animal. I concern myself with prayer and with campaigning for a fairer world (I am also a socialist) and to a greater extent - I leave other people to live their lives in their own way (as long as it does not cause direct harm or offence to others).

Regards

Julie

[Limehouse]

Are you honestly asking me if I believe God gives people cancer? Like pointing out who does and who doesn't get it? That is an obvious no as most people would think. I do believe in karma and in what goes around comes around. That is if you're completely negative or bad to other people then that negativity is going to eventually come back around to you. Is that always what happens though? No, like with your Christian friends.But some people get what they deserve
Jordan

Hi Jordan,

I'm struggling to follow your logic because your previous post (the fill in the blanks post) did seem to suggest that because Hitchens wrote a book about why he is an atheist, he therefore succumbed to cancer. Now, it seems, it is karma that he succumbed - 'some people get what they deserve' - as you put it. This seems to be a very odd statement from someone who has argued so passionately for freedom of speech and democracy in other threads.

Hitchens didn't JUST write about being an atheism. He also wrote a very good book called 'Why Orwell Matters' and several other very readable books. I do not think he was 'always completely negative or bad to others' and i think his cancer was probably the result of being a smoker rather than a bad person.

Regards

Julie

[Errata]

"His command is that we care for people before we care for religion."

What about the story of Abraham and Isaac?

He did send an angel to stop Abraham, and admit it was a test. Nobody said god isn't a dick

What I was taught was that this command represents a lot of things. It wasn't saying that you need to do whatever god tells you to do, though Abraham did. It's saying that obedience to god creates tough choices. Choices that in the end, god doesn't ask you make. It's also about fallibility in interpreting gods will. Even if god comes out and says to your face that you need to do something that is wrong, it doesn't mean you are necessarily supposed to do it. Abraham's obedience was good. But he paid a price for it. We are told that Isaac became afraid of his father, and hesitant to learn about his father's god, and was not prepared to take over the priesthood when Abraham died.

The story of Abraham that we look to as how to be is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He argues with god for the lives of the people in those cities. He tells god straight out that destroying everybody for the sins of some was wrong. It turns out not to have a difference in the end. But god was not displeased with Abraham and is in fact persuaded by him to spare the cities if a certain number of righteous men can be found. It's kind of a big deal when god says to a human "okay. you're right. we'll do it your way". He doesn't always say that (the entire noah episode was a dick move), but sometimes he does. It is our duty to go so far as to tell god to go to hell when lives are at stake.

What set early Judaism apart from the previous religions, and many afterward, is that it was the first religion to encode into it's laws how to treat other human beings. Previous to that, religion was sacrifices to gods to do something for you, or sacrifices to gods to keep them out of your life. The Greek Pantheon is the greatest example of a protection racket man has ever seen. What you gave to the god was what you got from them. But Judaism said that yeah, you had to sacrifice an unblemished bullock or whatever, but that alone wasn't going to cut it. If you beat your slaves, you are in trouble. If you steal from others, you are in trouble. If you work in trade and do not give your wife an orgasm five nights a week (an obscure one, but a favorite), you are in trouble. All written down in 400 bc so there was no excuse to not know these rules.

Our greatest Rabbi Hillel would probably be of interest to anyone who is interested in what we as a religion value. And Christians since Hillel's work is the basis of the teaching of Jesus. His most famous story is about a man who taunted him and said "Teach me the Torah while standing on one foot" And Hillel replied "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; go study."

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Does God believe in you?

God will believe in you if you believe in him.

So believe in God with all your heart and, whilst you're at it, please give generously.

We are told that Jesus was a poor and simple man, yet somehow the various religious corporations in the world have contrived to become staggeringly rich and powerful.

Belief is control.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

"His command is that we care for people before we care for religion."

What about the story of Abraham and Isaac?

[ChainzCooper]

Are you suggesting God gave Hitchens cancer?

Three people I knew who died of cancer were the most faithful Christians you could hope to find. All three of them loved God unquestioningly and served him faithfully. They were the kindest, most generous people you could meet.

Did God give them cancer too?

Are you honestly asking me if I believe God gives people cancer? Like pointing out who does and who doesn't get it? That is an obvious no as most people would think. I do believe in karma and in what goes around comes around. That is if you're completely negative or bad to other people then that negativity is going to eventually come back around to you. Is that always what happens though? No, like with your Christian friends.But some people get what they deserve
Jordan

[Errata]

Let us for instance take the claim that religious people want intelligent design or creationism taught in schools. Or if not all religious people, at least the very religious people.

There are exactly two kinds of people this statement applies to. Fundamentalist Christians, and Fundamentalist Muslims. There is no Hindu on the face of this planet, no matter how devout, that wants intelligent design taught. There could be a couple of Jews, but it's not an article of faith. Even Moderate Christians and Moderate Muslims don't want it taught. And in the US and the UK, we aren't hearing a whole lot from local fundamentalist Muslims. So it's Christians. Fundamentalist Christians. Not all of us, not by a long shot.

Proselytizing is also not a "religious" issue. Jews don't do it. Hindus don't do it. Muslims don't do it. Shinto don't do it. Christians do it. And the Ba'hai.

As for god somehow setting up a moral code, I am not conversant with every religious text out there, and some commentary akin to the Midrash can make a big difference. In the whole of Judaism, we are not told what to think or what to feel, except in one specific instance. We cannot covet our neighbors stuff. Coveting is both emotional and actionable, so that we can't do. Otherwise, we are just told how to behave. Not dissimilar to secular law. It doesn't say I can't want to kill a man, or even plan on killing a man, it says I can't kill him. Morals are emotional. Right and wrong are feelings, and even with an exceptionally complex legal code, we still have to deal with that one on our own. If you know of a religion that does tell people what to feel, that's great, but it's not mine.

As for Atheists sharing a belief system, you do. You all believe that there is no god. Which I totally get. But characterizing people who do believe as fatuous or dumb seems a common stereotype. And I have to wonder that if rational, reasoned theists threaten the belief that there is no god. I have met many atheists who call themselves atheist because they reject the god they were brought up with. Which to me is not dissimilar to giving up ice cream because you hated the first flavor you had. Which is perfectly fine, but then don't give me crap for liking ice cream. And some people seem to think that you can't have science and god, so since science makes more sense, suddenly god can't exist. Which I don't really understand, but whatever works. If I can have god and science, and I can, and atheists can't understand how, then there is no reason they can't have science and god if they wanted, and suddenly it isn't about how "superstitious" I am, but about the total lack of imagination the atheist has. Some atheists are just as limited as any atheist has accused a religious person of being. Many aren't, but some are. Religious people have constant checks as to how successfully they integrate their belief system in with the workings of the world. I don't think atheists do. Which means that religious people are stronger in their "faith" than a good many atheists, because religious people have their faith constantly attacked by the nature of existence, and atheists only have it confirmed. Which scientifically is like setting up an experiment so that you know you will get the answer you want every time.

As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There are absolutely extremist and fanatic Muslims, as there are of any faith. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are I suppose "real" Muslims. I'm a "real" Jew and I eat pork. The definition of a cult has never been about belief, or the strength of belief. And this is actually something I have quite a bit of experience with. It is about the use of religion for consolidation of power and personal gain, and the furtherance of criminal enterprise. That's how the US defines it. I'm sure Warren Jeffs believes in his FLDS teaching. That he used those teachings to become extremely powerful in the lives of his flock and then to rape teenage girls makes it a cult. I'm sure the Taliban consider themselves good Muslims. What I think you do not understand is that because they consider themselves good Muslims, you know that Malala did not violate Sharia Law. She violated Taliban law. Had they considered her to be in violation of Sharia law, they would have stoned her to death. Or hanged her, or beheaded her, depending on the crime. That's what they do. Mostly they behead people. They shot her. Fundamentalist Muslims cannot shoot someone to execute them under Sharia Law. They have to execute the criminal in the manner described in the Koran. And the Taliban does. So since the Taliban has no problems beheading people for violation of Sharia Law, and had access to her, could have taken her and executed her in the accepted manner, the fact they did not do so means that this was political not religious. She was not judged under Sharia, she was judged by men. This doesn't mean that religion was involved, but it means she was not judged under religious law. This was a bunch of men afraid of the popularity of a little girl, not a bunch of men following the law of their faith.

It is akin to a Prison warden drowning a prisoner in a toilet. You know the man was not executed by the US legal system, because drowning someone in a toilet is prohibited. Therefor, the warden was drowning the guy for personal reasons.

I have noticed a trend of Atheists talking about religions as though they were the same. Talking about faith as though all people had it in the same way. Talking about a belief in god as though it was the same in every religion. It's not. The same way not all brown people are Mexicans, which is another thing that irritates me. If you have a problem with the behavior of Christians, say Christians. If you have a problem with the beliefs of Jews, say Jews. If you find Muslims in violation of some sort of universal social or moral code, say Muslims. We are not the same. We do not believe the same things. Even the term "Judeo-Christian" drives me nuts, because there is such a massive fundamental difference in everything to two believe, that we can't be hyphenated. It's the same as saying "Judeo-Hindu beliefs". I'm quite fond of Hinduism, but we aren't the same. The belief system I was raised in says that yes, there is a god, but he's not going to do anything other than not strike you dead. His command is that we care for people before we care for religion. I'm not saying we're always great at it, but that's what he says. Christianity has different priorities. First god, then Jesus, then either the church, or people. The San of the Kalihari have no relationship with their deities, unless they come across a praying mantis, and then they send the mantis as a messenger with their good wishes, and perhaps a request or two. Their god is an invisible neighbor. We aren't the same. We don't prioritize the same way, we don't have the same relationship with our respective deities, and we are NOT responsible for the misbehavior of other faiths.

Remember that some people can be very hurt by blanket assumptions about religion. Others can get pissed. If you wouldn't say something like "Black people can't speak proper English" when you mean that you just met one black kid who didn't speak proper English, please don't do the same for religion. We are as individual as races, and not recognizing that is no less prejudiced than thinking that all black people look alike.

[DVV]

Roy, you're a man.
Les autres : continuez à faire comme si LE phénomène religieux signifiait que TOUTES les religions se valent et disent la même chose.
C'est aussi stupide qu'affirmer que tous les athéistes ont la même philosophie.
Crétins.