patrick.net

Erickk Hoogenbaum: "Too bad. Scientism is a religion in itself–in that it is a systematic worldview. Science doesn’t give us much of an ought. Science only tells us how the world is. Read Scottish philosopher David Hume’s Essay on the is/ought problem. Once we find out the truth statements, we still have to decide to do with the data. Only philosophy, ethics, religion and CONVICTIONS can tell us this."

It is true that Science alone has no opinion on human behavior. But logic and science can help form and maintain a rational belief system of philosophy and ethics.
At the core of any belief system (including philosophy, ethics, and religion), are some unprovable assumptions. I reason that the fewer assumptions the better, that assumptions should not contradict logic, and that superstition cannot help clarify beliefs in any meaningful way.

A common sense belief assumption may be: We should treat others with kindness as we wish to be treated, and we likely be treated the same.
If "and God said so" is added, it does not clarify the reasoning behind the belief.
Religious beliefs were at one time based on a persons reasoning. That reasoning may or may not be valid now (according to current society or knowledge).

For example, perhaps rules against eating pork or shellfish can be eliminated because of refrigeration, or perhaps the list of animals not to eat should be expanded/changed to help with sustainability of the animals, or our environment. The logic behind religious beliefs should be reevaluated occasionally.

No one needs to be a scholar here. Just read the words. They mean what they mean.

That is bullpucky, rhetorical fundamentalism to slag on the religion. (edit: everything controversial has a critical context, and at any rate religionists are very adept at mentally firewalling the crap that causes difficulties for them)

Unlike kthomas above I don't look to musty books for any sort of received morality or ways to live my life, but I understand that BILLIONS of people are either conditioned to do so or find the nihilism and uber-rationality of secular reason to be too much for their monkey brains, and sink back into the warm comfort of faith in a creator or otherwise superior force in the Universe.

IMHO slagging on their religion and the central figure of it as you do is just going to repulse them, as if I walked on the campus of BYU and started slagging on about all the BS surrounding Joseph Smith's life.

Attacking a religion head on like this is a mug's game. You're just playing into their defense mechanisms. The only way to beat back the tide of religion is to live a better life without it and let that be your argument.

So if we're worried about how many people die as a result of, what, religious belief? Hands down in the last ten years, it's Christians running the show and killing massive numbers of people.
George W. Bush, in response to 9/11 (3,000 dead), starts two wars, killing at least some thousands in Afghanistan intially, and then topping that by invading Iraq and killing (by some estimates) hundreds of thousands of people in that country.
Now forget about religion for a second and imagine, in your comfortable existence here in the seat of empire, that we were invaded and got the shit bombed of us. Carpet bombing, not a one-time hit on a prominent target. Whoa, time to take the war to the enemy, no matter the cost, eh?
That's what I find missing from discussions about Islam or any other religion somehow being a worse book of old myths than another book of old myths--the question WHY? Why do they hate us? as one moron asked in recent years.
Figure it out.

Pacman's Response: "But logic and science can help form and maintain a rational belief system of philosophy and ethics."

Rational is logical. We have to make a distinction between syllogistic reasoning and enthymematic reasoning. Syllogistic reasoning is science. Enthymeme is qualitative. Ethics, philosophy, the reasons why we do or not do something, these are all qualitative. Religion lies in the realm of the reasonable--conviction. Science lies in the realm of the logical. People need to learn to make distinctions between scientific fact, conviction, and opinion. Think of a glass jar, a box, and a tie. The jar contains items that can be seen and knowable--this is science. The box contains items that we speculate about--philosophy and religion. The tie is a matter of taste--opinion.

In response to scholayil: "All religious are nuts accept it." Ok. Accept this: All people are religious. Everyone has a system of beliefs. Some contain more fact than myth, others contain more myth than fact.

"I understand Christians want to look good, the best way is to highlight people worse than the Christian ‘educated’. I think those ‘islamic’ terrorists may need to do a lot more killings to evoke shame in Muslims, if that is what Christian media/evangelists want."

I didn't know anyone actually believed the television evangelists. They're charlatans and hypocrites.

"Being blessed with Jesus and love, any explanation why Christians engage in Killings to defeat godless communists and other killings for profit?
1. Millions in vietnam, cambodia, Korea, Iraq, Iran
3. Millions in colonialist times
5. Millions in Japan
6. 70 Million in WW1-2
7. Millions in Afghan - Pak -USSR _USA Mess ( Reagen commented Bin Laden and fighters are like founders of USA. Maybe some truth in that)."

Ask yourself one question: Who makes money on war? It's not the Christians. It's the defense contractors and investment banks. Many of them happen to be Zionist. Examples: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the BIS and the IMF--there is a big list.

^ ooh, he went there :)

FWIW, I think there's enough overlap among the AEI/PNAC/Hudson/Heritage axis and the Old Money East Coast Establishment not to need to find more scapegoats.

War has always been good for business, as MG Smedley Butler wrote about in the 30s. United Fruit in Guatemala is the general model. Pay off the government and the Company can move in to rape the land with profitable cash crops and mining operations that enrich the locals little if at all. If the Establishment was really serious about this you'd think they'd actually have the CIA operate as business intelligence joint venture with cats paws private equity corporations on the order of Carlyle Group as its public face.

There's all kinds of weirdness associated with the Blackwater Group. That's not Zionist per se, but Christian Fundamentalist, though the Fundies do seem intent on stirring up the shit to bring the End Times in our lifetimes, or what's left of them before the islamic world really starts fighting fire with fire.

The war leaders are most likely not very religious themselves in private, but will generally have a 'guru' for public consumption or will make religious statements to appease constituency, all for their personal advantage. Religion may not be directly responsible for the killings, but without it, like Bush's "crusade in Iraq" statement and an Anthrax scare from Fed labs, he cannot get people over his side to do what he wants, kill his fathers would be killer. He was open enough to admit that once the war started.

The thing troubling me is that a Giant Power ( power = demonstrated willingness to hurt) like USA /EU has millions with belief that Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Communists are not good humans and are going to hell anyway. I am better than you, my nonsense belief is better than yours. For Muslims christians are infidels. You just need a small prod to start a genocide.

The book War of the World claims that WW1-2 were essentially racial conflicts started by humans by first demonizing "others" and then making it a hobby to kill 'Aliens'. In this century, AHKmed is 'it' as Carlos Mancia explains. None of the muslim nations or even terrorist organizations are powerful enough to really hurt US/EU. To put it in a sick context, road accident kills 4000 and Flu kills 30K Americans annually, but you do not see war on roads as roads cannot be made 'Aliens' as easily as the 'other' religion.

Islam is a religion which encourages violence,and no other religion is like it.
They all teach compassion and peace. That explains it.

War is about money and power. Always was, always will be. Religion is an excuse not a reason.

I am forced to ask some questions that make me uncomfortable.

If Islam encourages violence, why does 'islamic violence' pale in comparison with 'christian violence' and 'christian colonialism' and 'christian missonarism'? 1000,000 Iraqis and 20,000 Afghans in American retribution against 3000 Americans .Even 'christian' retribution is horrible. Islam only called for an eye for an eye in pre-historic times.

Why does white Christians carry so much hate against other religions and communists? because muslims do not do gods work like goldman ceo / palin / bush / many Texans ??

'Missionarism' is itself a crime against humanity. Stop it now.

alexgeorgev says

Islam is a religion which encourages violence,and no other religion is like it.
They all teach compassion and peace. That explains it.

Mr. Alex, you don't know anything about Islam, you are like a door-step kid talking and trying to ignite the fire using the absurd statement. Be grow and civilized as per se.

Here is a excerpt from Al-Quran - Chapter 24 for the one who is a true believer.

"The Messenger's duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way (i.e. to preach in a plain way)." (54) Allâh has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islâm). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me."

AN

Response to Troy: "FWIW, I think there’s enough overlap among the AEI/PNAC/Hudson/Heritage axis and the Old Money East Coast Establishment not to need to find more scapegoats."

I disagree. Four words: Council on Foreign Relations.

"There’s all kinds of weirdness associated with the Blackwater Group. That’s not Zionist per se, but Christian Fundamentalist, though the Fundies do seem intent on stirring up the shit to bring the End Times in our lifetimes, or what’s left of them before the islamic world really starts fighting fire with fire."

The End Times is all myth. People will bring it about because it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Christian Fundamentalists are insane--or fanatics rather. You cannot reason with those people. They don't know the limitations of their religion. View skepticism and fanaticism on a continuum. The fundamentalists, and not all of them, are closer to the fanatic category.

I'm a Christian Skeptic. I sort of take the difference between Judaism and Christianity and split the difference. It doesn't make me very popular, but it makes for damn good argument--and a lot of irritated people. Hopefully I'll live long enough to accomplish something with my life. =P I view religion as a discussion. In order for me to discuss it, its helpful if I'm religious myself. Am I agnostic? Yes. Am I atheist? No. Primarily because there is no way to validate a theist or atheist assumption. Agnostic is the most scientific viewpoint, because it has the option of being proven wrong.

In response to scholayil: "Why does white Christians carry so much hate against other religions and communists? because muslims do not do gods work like goldman ceo / palin / bush / many Texans ??"

Christianity in (some forms can be) extremely socialistic. Actually, Marx got some of his ideas from the Christians. You can read that in the book of Acts. The early church pooled all of their resources together to survive. Not all Christians hate the communists. They just think it's a flawed system. So do I. The Russians implemented a similar system, and the bureaucrats who ran it exploited their citizens. They drove around in Mercedes while the people starved to death and traded goods on the black market. Many people forget that many of the Russians starved to death while its government implemented its system. Read Ayn Rand's books. She came out of such a system and saw its flaws. But she was short on solutions. Ultimately, I believe in the maximum dissemination of power because people cannot be trusted with it. Oh yeah, and Marx had a Jewish father if I remember right. Religion can be the opium of the masses. I view it more as a positive stimulant. It becomes opium when you suspend your ability to think.

"because muslims do not do gods work like goldman ceo / palin / bush / many Texans"

Lloyd Blankfein is a Jew. I don't know what his version of God's work is. Palin is a fundamentalist, but she was raised catholic. Bush just converted to Methodist so he could win votes among the Fundamentalist Christians. Once again, the people in power care about power and maintaining their family dynasty.

I think what may help people think more clearly is not to overgeneralize and put all religious people in one category. What you really need to look at is human motivations. Most people in the world are motivated by power, fame, money, and pleasure. If they were motivated truly by their religion, they wouldn't seek these things.

Erickk Hoogenbaum says

In response to scholayil: “Why does white Christians carry so much hate against other religions and communists? because muslims do not do gods work like goldman ceo / palin / bush / many Texans ??”

And Pharoahs in Egypt also did the work like gods and pro-claimed/acted to be gods. Where are these gods ? under the mud or in the British museum !!.. History always repeats itself and you know the end.

Erickk. I hope most people in the world are not over zealous and do not over generalize.

Zealous is past fanatic. I'd hope not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgTKLJWYVr0&feature=related

This post has brought out what is written in the Koran. Instead of saying "other people don't understand the context" or "do not know how to interpret it" - the first question is what are these statements doing in a so called "holy book"? The second question is - if the interpretation is so difficult that people who have good understanding of english and comprehension, have difficulty in getting it right - how is it assumed that a semi literate people will somehow interpret this as a "call for peaceful existence" with other folks who aren't muslims?
History should not be doctored to suit ones needs - there is nothing to refute that islam was born out of bloodshed, slavery, torture, plunder, rape etc - whereas no other "messenger of God" is known to have participated in any such act - and if they did, they would not be looked upon as role models to follow. Islam also got followers initially by coersion - following the doctrine that has been put into words (above) - and it continues to do the same all over the world, even as we speak.
If islam is for peace, why is it that lands where muslims existed in peace (till Wahabi influence reached them) are suddenly erupting in a frenzy of violence? Why is islam so fragile, that its followers panic at the slightest provocation? Read : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_re_as/as_malaysia_allah_ban
How come moderate muslims are not taking out protest marches to show their tolerance and respect for christians in Malaysia? How come moderate muslims never take out any protest marches, against Saudi Arabia's despicable treatment of people of other faiths going on for the past 50 years? Whereas if a burka is banned in France - we see worldwide protests.
I am glad that atleast some muslims are trying to think rationally and doing an introspection of their own self. That is the only way for them to try and reach the glorious age which they left behind in 1000 AD, when they were at their peak of knowledge and had a more open conversation and interchange of ideas with the rest of the world.

coolvyakti, I can just say that asking "How come you suck?" isn't really constructive.

FWIW all children of the One God have blood on their hands. The Christians aren't innocent. There were the Cruscades of the Middle Ages and today via America to the Muslim world. If you believe anything in the Hebrew Bible we Jews have blood on our hands every time we've come into power in Israel, including modern times. The muslims have spread their religion by the points of swords and continue to do so through intimidation and governmental control.

I am a Jew, for what it's worth. I'm highly disappointed in how the Children of the One God (three of the four communities (the Bahai's have yet to spill blood)) have conducted themselves. More people have died in the name of this One God at the hands of Jews, Christians, and Muslims than have died for the sake or in the name of any other Deity.

Religion as a whole, even when considering religions that aren't related to the worship of The One God, has a bad track record when it comes to violence and blood spilling.

What it really comes down to is money and control. Religions are systems that allow people who use them to control vast masses of people and to control vast volumes of wealth. Sometimes religions run governments. Sometimes members of certain religions use their religions to run governments and persecute others. Sometimes governments use religion to divide a populace to retain control over their people. This had been especially true in Europe where Jews were often separated and persecuted so that the majority Christian peoples of Europe could unite against a common "enemy."

This is the dark side of all religions. No religion is entirely exempt from causing some harm (psychological, spiritual, physical, emotional).

There are positive aspects of religion too. Unity and connection with others and the Divine is a good thing. Even Islam does this at its most basic level. When you look at basic Islam "The Five Pillars" you see that at its heart, Islam is a religion that is at its core, good.

Shahadah: Profession of faith: "[I profess that] There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet"

Salah: Prayers: Five times per day.

Zakat: Alms giving: Helping out the least among us.

Sawm: Fasting: In order to make a spiritual journey and to get closer to Allah

Hajj: Pilgrimage: To make the pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime if you can afford it. The believer should be self-aware and examine their intentions in performing the pilgrimage. This should lead to constant striving for self-improvement.

This is the core of Islam. Nowhere in these does it say anything about committing acts of violence against anyone.

All Children of the One God are Children of The Books: The Hebrew Bible (Christian "Old Testament"), The Christian "New Testament," and the Koran. All of these have violence in them. All of these call for violent acts to be committed somewhere in them.

It is incumbent on all Children of the One God to make choices on how to live faith. Most followers choose to follow the positive and peaceful precepts of their religions. The Zealots and Fundamentalists choose differently.

Let's not bash an entire religious system because some of the people in a religious system make choices that hurt others. That is crude and ignorant. Let's take a look at how the majority of people claiming to be adherents of a religion choose to live their lives.

Using scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, anyone can show that there is a violent subtext running through the scriptures. Anyone can quote examples in English, out of context, without proper translation, and without proper interpretation from any of the scriptures of any of the religions of the Children of the One God to "prove" that any of these religions is violent. The key to understanding these texts is in the interpretation, understanding the context, understanding the meaning in the original language of the text (including the idioms), and how one chooses to live what is learned in the scriptures.

None of these texts were written to be taken literally in English as too many believe who have written above. Middle Eastern thought isn't western thought. The New Testament crosses the line into Western thinking often but it still reaches back to Middle Eastern logic patterns and ways of thinking. English is a poor language to use in which to understand these texts fully. And using a "Western Platonic/Descartes/Hegel/Heiddegar/Kant/etc." thought paradigm won't yield true understanding of texts that were written not just in a different tongue, but also with a different thought paradigm unrelated to western thought.

Most Muslims, Christians, and Jews are peace loving and decent people who treat each other with some level of respect and kindness. All three religions have examples of extremism where violence erupts. Let's encourage those who embrace the positive aspects of these three religions while making the attempt to reach out to the extremists of all three religions. The extremists are a loud minority in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. It's time for the morally upstanding people in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism unite to transform the extremists and appeal to their hearts to end the violence.

This thread is dangerously condemning of an entire religion based on the behaviors of minority extremists. This doesn't help the dialogue because it isn't respectful of those in the majority who embrace Islam and are peaceful and God-loving people.

^ パチパチ (Japanese for 'polite clapping')

While I disagree that there aren't major doctrinal and dogmatic issues within Islam, I think it's up to them to figure it out and outsiders ragging on Islam in general just strengthens the argument of the extremists.

Simchaland:

I wanted to genuinely complement your essay. I've been trying to communicate a similar point but failed. By all standards, I am a heretic. I have Jewish roots on my mother's side, but I was baptized a Christian. I have many Muslim friends. I'd just like to see all of the fighting stop. The people who rule the world don't really care about religion--at least I don't think so. I think it's more of a money and power game as you said. It's class warfare. Human motivations haven't changed much over the centuries. If people only learn one thing, it's that principles are important. They do matter--and they do exist. Don't see anyone as other.

For the Atheists and nihilists: Please be more respectful of religious people. Consider it a blessing that you get to learn from our mistakes. The standard is now higher for you, since your get to learn from our blunders and not commit them. I would become a devout Atheist if I thought that it was possible to live a more virtuous life. I haven't met an Atheist who was yet able to convince me.

I have a question: If we were to have no religion(s), would we still have violence and bloodshed?

I'd like to share something personal from Yahoo answers (I posted a question).

Relationship Between Heretical Christian and Muslim?
I know everyone will probably hate me, because I've just pinned myself between every group. I realize this question might be explosive. Please be very respectful. What is the Muslim view of this? I am not a typical Christian. My family has Jewish ties on my mother's side. I was baptized a Christian. I believe that the Christian scriptures were changed. My theological convictions are closest to Essene or Ebionite, because I have a problem with the divinity of Christ. I won't convert to Judaism because I am not zionist and I believe the Palestinians were pushed out of their land. I won't convert to Islam because of some of the more violent elements on the fringe. And I have a problem with the Christian Fundamentalists because I don't believe in sola-scriptura. I don't take the Catholic or Orthodox view to Christianity because I grew up in a Protestant Tradition and I have a problem venerating icons and statues. I also have a problem with the place Mary has in some Christian traditions. Basically, I believe in following the laws of Moses and the teachings of Yeshua. What does that make me? I've probably offended everyone, but please try to understand this from my own viewpoint. I'm not trying be troublesome, just live out my own convictions truthfully and peacefully.

Does it come down to love? Or will family politics cause me many problems? =( I really admire and respect the virtue in this woman. Most of my immediate family is Christian, so they wouldn't understand. I expect hers wouldn't either.

Here is once of the responses I got:

"Firstly, I am a Palestinan Muslim and thank you very much for believing that the Palestinians were pushed out of their land. Many people believe differently.

Back to the topic, I don't think that you should rule out all the possibilities yet. What is it about Islam that you find violent? It really is a great religion if you take the time to understand it. You should read parts of the Quran and understand the meaning. There are many translations out there."

Inner Strife says

I would become a devout Atheist if I thought that it was possible to live a more virtuous life

? atheism or religion is independent of virtue. Virtue comes from within, from the decisions we make every moment.

AFAICT, at the end of the day the only virtue we can be judged on is have we made the world a better place for others. To the extent we have succeeded with that overarching mission we have been 'virtuous'. The be virtuous is to be a Man, not an animal. That is the word's Latin root, where we get 'virile', too.

People who succeed at this with no expectation of eternal reward for their efforts are, we should agree, quite admirable.

Inner Strife says

What is it about Islam that you find violent?

All the violence? Seems the more Musilm a person is the more violence emanates from them.

'course, one would hope all those protests were inflitrated by false-flag Israeli agents. If not, the Mossad is off their game.

You cannot be RATIONAL and religious !!

billions of christians believe that jesus is the GOD
billions of muslims believe that allah is the GOD.
one of them have to wrong then !!
so billions are wrong ....and if billions are already wrong , whats the probability that the other billions cannot be wrong about an invisible man

In response to Troy:

"atheism or religion is independent of virtue. Virtue comes from within, from the decisions we make every moment."

Nope. Virtue comes from understanding principles and putting them into practice. Religious people seem to do a better job at it. Particularly in the area of practicing temperance (in areas such as alcohol consumption, food, sexual habits, etc).

"AFAICT, at the end of the day the only virtue we can be judged on is have we made the world a better place for others. To the extent we have succeeded with that overarching mission we have been ‘virtuous’. The be virtuous is to be a Man, not an animal.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Except I believe to be virtuous is to acquire and put into practice eternal principles.

"You cannot be RATIONAL and religious !!"

Very well said--since religion has nothing to do with rationality. Rationing is a product of mathematics--science. Religion is a product of reason. Practicing religion is different than practicing science.

Response to chanakya:

That was a cheap analysis.

"billions of christians believe that jesus is the GOD
billions of muslims believe that allah is the GOD.
one of them have to wrong then !!"

Clearly you don't understand the issue. We believe in the same God. Allah is the name of God in Arabic. Many of the early Christians didn't believe Jesus was God.

It'll be interesting to see if devout atheists end up pursuing the same errors that religious people have. If I understand human nature properly, I'd think yes. Particularly in the area of tolerance.

Additionally I do agree that religion and atheism is independent of virtue.

Inner Strife says

Particularly in the area of practicing temperance (in areas such as alcohol consumption, food, sexual habits, etc

That sort of virtue, with no actual real-world impact, is entirely subjective if not meaningless.

I mean, really, are the dietary laws against eating lobster tails producing virtue? I think not. Just because a religion spells out explicit rituals, behaviorial requirements, and dietary restriction doesn't result in a virtuous life in the global, interpersonal sense of the word.

A religious tradition may by scattershot find some useful rules to dogmatize, but even then these are often half-baked or honored in the breach, like the islamic injunctions against interest.

A lot of these rules retard Sharia economies, though I do admit I like the general idea of Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa (diminishing partnership in a holding vehicle). It aligns well with how I think residential lending should work.

chanakya says

illions of christians believe that jesus is the GOD
billions of muslims believe that allah is the GOD.

"... and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god" -- George Bush, 2003.

tee hee hee

“… and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god” — George Bush, 2003.

Proof George Bush is an even lousier theologian than he was a president.

. . . that's still debatable (smile)

Response to Troy:

"That sort of virtue, with no actual real-world impact, is entirely subjective if not meaningless."

I disagree: it keeps people from becoming alcoholics, obese, and disease-infested--but this was only one example. How about this:

The Beatitudes
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

"like the islamic injunctions against interest."

Interest is an evil. I don't have a problem with charging a fee on money. But perpetual-compounded interest I have a problem with. Pretty much what the IMF does to every nation below the equator.

"and I believe [Christians and Muslims] worship the same god” — George Bush, 2003."

Interesting. For once George Bush actually said something intelligent. Too bad he didn't understand what he said =P. If you understand the evolution of Christianity and Islam, and the history of that region, then you know it's quite close to the truth. The only problem I have with George Bush is that he's George Bush and my IQ is higher than his. But, he's a politician. They're not much different. Power and re-election makes the political-system go 'round. It doesn't matter if they can make a sentence or not. Obama makes great sentences. But he's just as corrupt. Ultimately our civil rights just get shredded and taken away no matter who gets into office. I guess that's one of the reasons I haven't went the atheist route. I believe in the freedom for people to believe whatever they want, and not be persecuted for it. The only restriction: You have to respect a difference of conviction and be non-violent.

I pose a question to you all: If we were to have no religion(s), would we still have violence and bloodshed?

It’ll be interesting to see if devout atheists end up pursuing the same errors that religious people have. If I understand human nature properly, I’d think yes. Particularly in the area of tolerance.

Inner Strife says

Ultimately our civil rights just get shredded and taken away no matter who gets into office

Funny thing is, I've experience no identifiable loss of civil rights this past decade. If anything Obama has expanded rights by calling a moratorium on Federal prosecution of legalized marijuana distributors.

I disagree: it keeps people from becoming alcoholics, obese, and disease-infested–but this was only one example.

How very Straussian of you.

How about this:

The problem is that religion as it is run today in this country generally claims to be exclusive and does not actively seek the wisdom available to be found in other creeds. This is its loss and the fundamental reason I lost any interest in organized religion. It is really organized mass stupidity.

If we were to have no religion(s), would we still have violence and bloodshed?

Of course. But . . . The lack of religious differences though would remove one cause of violence both on the personal and state level. Christians in this country were very bloody-minded about wanting to f--- Saddam's shit up in 2002-2003. It was disgusting. The whole Blackwater thing with Erik Prince is also rather horrid -- there's millions of fundamentalist nutjobs trying their hardest to bring on the End Times apparently. That's really constructive.

In Response to Troy:

"Funny thing is, I’ve experience no identifiable loss of civil rights this past decade. If anything Obama has expanded rights by calling a moratorium on Federal prosecution of legalized marijuana distributors."

The Patriot Act says otherwise. Also a war that I wanted ended but that didn't happen. No difference.

"How very Straussian of you."

The difference, of course, being that practicing religion is voluntary.

"The problem is that religion as it is run today in this country generally claims to be exclusive and does not actively seek the wisdom available to be found in other creeds. This is its loss and the fundamental reason I lost any interest in organized religion. It is really organized mass stupidity."

Perhaps. It's good to be familiar with other wisdom. Exclusivity depends on the tradition. If people want to associate together based on shared convictions of right and wrong, I have no problem with it. If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that's fine with me too.

"It is really organized mass stupidity."

That's one way to look at it. Most people are stupid.

"Of course. But . . . The lack of religious differences though would remove one cause of violence both on the personal and state level. Christians in this country were very bloody-minded about wanting to f— Saddam’s shit up in 2002-2003. It was disgusting. The whole Blackwater thing with Erik Prince is also rather horrid — there’s millions of fundamentalist nutjobs trying their hardest to bring on the End Times apparently. That’s really constructive."

I don't believe in authoritarian thought control. I'm a liberal. Some of the fundamentalist Christians are more close-minded people, a little more similar to yourself.

I agree with you about the whole end-times scenario. What scares me most is that it has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm a skeptic; I don't believe in much prophecy. I do believe in self-fulfilling prophecy.

Inner Strife says

The Patriot Act says otherwise. Also a war that I wanted ended but that didn’t happen. No difference.

I *really* can't get worked up about PATRIOT. Is there anything in particular that has actually affected you, or is this just BS. nb, when I was living in Japan in the 90s I just naturally assumed calls [edit: to the US] were being intercepted. I don't like that loss of privacy but as long as there are no actual abuses by people with access to this stuff I can live with it.

As for the war(s), it's kinda disingenuous blaming the politicians now. The whole thing is just a f---ing political football. No matter what Obama does he'll catch s--- from 30% of the population, because we are a nation of idiots. And I don't pretend to know what's the best strategy for Afghanistan, other than not killing innocent people. This particular fear was seen as typical Democratic wimpiness going in, but at least now is migrating into the centrality of our military doctrine apparently.

The difference, of course, being that practicing religion is voluntary

Wrong Strauss? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that’s fine with me too.

Just don't call that virtue. It dilutes the meaning of the word.

are more close-minded people, a little more similar to yourself.

Just because I think the religions I've been exposed to are bs doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. Anyone who believes in the faith they were inculcated with when growing up are generally very closed-minded, as is trying to apply texts written thousands of years ago by goat herders and camel traders as hard and fast moral law. I'll take rationalism and empiricism, thanks.

In response to Troy:

*really* can’t get worked up about PATRIOT. Is there anything in particular that has actually affected you, or is this just BS."

Nothing has affected me yet. I'm just concerned that in time things will get worse. I like being left alone like most people to live my life in peace and philosophical reflection.

"Wrong Strauss?"

My apologies. I didn't communicate my point right. That did sound Straussian. I just meant that practicing temperance in a religious context is something one does voluntarily when one chooses to practice certain religions. It affects one's health--for the better.

"Just because I think the religions I’ve been exposed to are bs doesn’t mean I’m closed-minded. Anyone who believes in the faith they were inculcated with when growing up are generally very closed-minded, as is trying to apply texts written thousands of years ago by goat herders and camel traders as hard and fast moral law. I’ll take rationalism and empiricism, thanks."

True. I guess that I just wish more people would realize the limitations of science. Not everything is meant to be rationalized and quantified. That leads us to an inhuman place. I'm not a modernist or a postmodernist. I guess I'm the type who likes to scour the texts looking for principles. I think I'm coming from more of a neo-classicist/pre-modernist paradigm of thought.

"If people want to go worship a golf-ball in their backyard, that’s fine with me too."

It fits with the principle of freedom! Although that is vicious! Ha! I had a mind-picture of physically paying worship to the ball, not a round of putting golf. Anyway, you get my gist =P

Great response, thanks. I tend to get argumentative on the internet but that was a constructive reply.

You're welcome. It's always a pleasure communicating with good minds.

What does stuff about religion do on a real estate blog?
Please don't take advantage of this platform to broadcast some pretty pathetic unrelated propaganda.

Whether any of those texts contains explicit violence or not (I don't believe in any...), whether any of these religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, all in fact) was built on violence or not doesn't matter. All these religions are inherently dangerous because a large number of "followers" or "believers" are there to be led, to be shown the path without asking questions. Just put the wrong "leader" in place and you've got a an explosive cocktail.
BTW, I've been to a few buddhist group meditation sessions, and yes even there, you find people who really miss the point and unconsciously try to guide you, in their way.

I can easily find as much, not to so say more, religious driven violence in the history of Christianity as in that of Islam, despite the fact that, according to the Bible, Jesus didn't rob/rape/kill... I won't say anything about other religions because I don't know them well, but I expect the very same patterns.

The current issue with the muslim world doesn't come from Islam or from the Koran. There's a crisis in the Middle East. A very modern one. A 100 years ago you were much better off being Jewish in a muslim country than in say Germany...

The Middle East has entered a phase of decline a few centuries ago. That's a problem of its own. One can only expect instability, extremism from regions in decline. Cf the rise of nazism in post WW1 Germany. Those Germans weren't different from those we know today and I have a very positive opinion of all the Germans I know.

The West (Europe first, joined later by the US) was prompt to take advantage of this weakness. It started back in the 18th century.
Jewish settlers created the last colony of the Western (mostly European) imperialist wave of the 19th and early 20th century. Had the French obtained the mandate in 1920, they would have created some Christian state instead, leveraging the Christians that, then, made up 20% of the local population. They only got Syria and created Lebanon. I'll remind you that the Fort Hood killer was ... the son of Palestinian immigrants. That may have inspired him a bit more than whatever his prophet did 1400 years ago...
Meanwhile western countries support strongly an array of some of the worst dictatorships in the world. There are good reasons for that. The pathetic Saudi regime, very good friends of the Bushes and co, is pretty good at recycling oil money into western economies. They buy tons of modern fighter jets for billions, even though they don't have pilots to fly them, invest billions in banks before they crash... Divide, conquer, control. Oil, oil, oil.

Let me quote Noam Chomsky:
""" Forty-five years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his staff discussed what he called the "campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people". The basic reason, the National Security Council advised, is the recognition that the US supports corrupt and brutal governments that block democracy and development, and does so because of its concern "to protect its interest in Near East oil". """

Back to the "terrorist" wave. The need for immediate defense has to be combined with something a bit deeper than quoting parts of the Koran or any text. I can only hope that the end of oil is close.

In response to eyeopener:

"What does stuff about religion do on a real estate blog?
Please don’t take advantage of this platform to broadcast some pretty pathetic unrelated propaganda."

We prefer freedom of thought and good analysis. Something the news media (all of it does not do).

"All these religions are inherently dangerous because a large number of “followers” or “believers” are there to be led, to be shown the path without asking questions. Just put the wrong “leader” in place and you’ve got a an explosive cocktail."

I am a follower of a religion. Religion is an idea. The only thing I follow is principles. How do I know you're not a follower of a system of beliefs? Do you follow a leader?

"I can easily find as much, not to so say more, religious driven violence in the history of Christianity as in that of Islam, despite the fact that, according to the Bible, Jesus didn’t rob/rape/kill… I won’t say anything about other religions because I don’t know them well, but I expect the very same patterns."

Yes. So is this violent nature a product of human nature, or of religion? I'm convinced humans have the same potential for goodness as evil. I don't think religion has much to do with it.

"The current issue with the muslim world doesn’t come from Islam or from the Koran. There’s a crisis in the Middle East. A very modern one. A 100 years ago you were much better off being Jewish in a muslim country than in say Germany…"

This is true. The Muslims primarily became irritated after mass-migration to Israel and the Palestinians were pushed out.

"Those Germans weren’t different from those we know today and I have a very positive opinion of all the Germans I know."

Me too. Some of my good friends are there.

I used to be a muslim until 9/11, I don't understand how these people can justify killing inocent people in the name of God. I'm a proud Agnostic, religion is just a waste of time. How can you believe in the koran or bible when man wrote them. I only believe what i see with my own eyes

To all who mistakenly call Israel the last Western Imperialist Colony created by Jews, I'd like to clear up some points of history that people seem to forget. This won't be popular. And these are the facts, like them or not.

Jews have always lived in the lands of Judea, Samaria, Israel, the Negev, and across the Jordan into Moabite territories. All through the ages Jews have lived there. Even before the modern establishment of the current State of Israel there were Middle Eastern Jews living there all along. They are called the Sephardim. The Sephardim lived in predominately Islamic countries after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Islam in the Middle East. So the notion that somehow Palestinian Arabs were forced off of "their" land is not 100% true and it's not 100% false.

The Ottoman Turks did nothing to improve Judea, Samaria, Israel, and the Negev into modern times. The land was left to whither and the desertification was spreading. Much of the area was swamp land. Arabs and Jews were neighbors who shared the land and lived side by side with each other in the province.

Once the British took control after the Ottoman Turks and created the Mandate of Palestine, they absorbed the Sephardic Jews and the Palestinian Arabs living on the lands of Judea, Samaria, Israel, and the Negev (and actually Gaza which is ancient Philistia from where the Roman Province of Palestine got its name and it stuck).

So, before the establishment of the modern State of Israel we had Sephardic Jews and Palestinian Arabs living in relative peace together on not very desirable land in the British Mandate of Palestine.

More trouble started when Zionism took hold in Eastern and Central Europe where Jews were concentrated in Europe. The nation states of the time held regular persecutions of Jews where they were living. These are Ashkhenazim (Eastern European Jews). We (they) look like Europeans because of generations of some mixing with the locals when fleeing the Middle East during persecutions there.

The late 19th Century was a very difficult time for Eastern European Jews because of persecution going on in Russia, Poland, and Germany, and other Eastern European lands. During that time Zionism (the idea that Jews are meant to live in Zion (which is a religious term for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem applied to the whole area of Israel, Samaria, and Judea) rose because Eastern European Jews wanted to escape oppression. They found it difficult because the Ottoman Turks didn't want more Jews in their Empire in their Palestinian Province. Ashkhenazim (Eastern European Jews) began to make the migration to Israel, Samaria, and Judea to join Sephardic Jews who have lived there for thousands of years. There were many problems and persecutions from the Turks and then the British who took over from the Turks. As more Jews came to Israel, Samaria, and Judea the Arab population became nervous because they were afraid of losing their majority in the province.

The Holocost in Europe during WWII put great pressure on the British to allow Jewish refugees to flee to the British Mandate of Palestine. The British fought this along with other Arab States. Some Jews came anyway. Many were turned back to be gassed in concentration camps by the Nazis and some remained as illegal immigrants.

Arab fears were stoked by the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into several States in 1947 after WWII. The British and the UN established a Jewish State called Israel and it had land mainly around the Galilee, Tel Aviv to Haifa on the Mediterranean Coast, and the Negev Desert. The British and the UN established the Kingdom of Jordan (Transjordan). The the lands of Samaria and Judea (Now the West Bank) including Jerusalem, and Gaza was supposed to be a newly created Palestinian Arab State. The Jews accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it.

The conflict was inevitable between Jews an Arabs at that point. Both sides started fighting. Eventually Egypt, Jordan, and Syria invaded and assured the Arab Palestinian population that they would win the war and "drive the Jews into the Sea." The Arab Palestinian civilian population fled the areas of conflict so that they would evade the danger of being in a war zone and to allow the Arab armies to have easier access to Jewish targets.

What happened? The Jews won and established a modern State of Israel capturing lands that were once owned by Palestinian Arabs and retaining the land that was theirs. And now comes the stoking of the problem. Israelis didn't want Palestinian Arabs to return to their lands that were now annexed through war into the State of Israel. Would you want people who wanted your annihilation as direct neighbors? But then what happened is that the Arab world wouldn't take their cousins into their lands as citizens and put them in refugee camps where they weren't allowed to have rights or integrate into the countries of Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Israelis came to occupy the West Bank and Gaza later and eventually the Sinai in a later war. Sinai was returned to Egypt eventually. But even today Israel is the defacto occupier of the West Bank and Gaza. The Arabs still haven't allowed displaced Arab Palestinians to become citizens of countries where they hold them as refugees to try to force Israel into allowing these Arab Palestinians and their descendants to enter back into the Modern State of Israel.

The Arab/Muslim countries expelled all of their Jews and took all Jewish property away from their Jewish citizens. These Sephardic Jews were the second major wave of immigration to Israel. They simply had nowhere else to go where they felt that they could remain true to their cultures. So, what people tend to forget is that not only did Israel disallow Palestinian Arabs to return after the War of Independence, the Arab/Muslim countries seized the property of Jews in their countries and expelled Jews from their countries not allowing them to return.

The poor Palestinian Arabs are caught in a very difficult political, economic, and sociological situation. They have a state in name only really. Control of their territories comes from outside (either Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, or even Egypt at times). And they haven't given up their demands of moving into lands that they once held before a war that they lost, and they lost more than once.

Israelis are held hostage more than they want to admit because they must retain control over territory where people are hostile to their intervention. Israelis suffer acts of terrorism on their own territory and they pay a huge price for the unjust way they treat Palestinian Arabs.

No one in this conflict has clean hands. All sides have blood on their hands and have spilled innocent blood over this complex conflict. Anyone who simplifies this into colonizers and colonized peoples makes this way too simplistic because both populations have legitimate claims to thousands of years of living on that land. Both Jews and Arabs in this conflict have refugees who have legitimate claims to property and land in countries where they don't live today.

So, as anyone can see if they study the actual factual history of the Israeli/Arab conflict, this isn't a simple one-sided victim/victimized situation. All of these people are both victims and victimizers at the same time. To pick one side or the other as the oppressor or the oppressed is simplifying a very complicated conflict.

People should stop listening to the propaganda put out by Western, Israeli, and Arab news networks and study the actual history of this conflict to understand just how complicated the conflict is. Both sides are wrong and both sides are correct. That's why this conflict is so complicated and bloody.