Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is Religion the Root of All Evil?

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted June 18, 2007.


Who's more ridiculous: "Christian" Islamophobes obsessed with the "threat to civilization" posed by "Islamofacism" or atheist evangelists who think religion is the root of all evil?
Gonsalves

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Sean Gonsalves

Whistle-Blowers Under Attack
The government's attempt to gut a law protecting whistle-blowers does not bode well for our First Amendment rights.
May 12, 2008

Our Great 'Secretocracy'
Government secrecy does not make us safer; it undermines the Constitution.
May 6, 2008

The News Media: Watchdog or Lap Dog?
It is becoming more and more difficult for the news media to undertake serious investigative reporting.
Apr 28, 2008

More stories by Sean Gonsalves

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I don't know who's more ridiculous: "Christian" Islamophobes obsessed with the "threat to civilization" posed by "Islamofacism" or atheist evangelists who think religion is the root of all evil.

Seeing as how most human beings on the planet believe in some kind of divinity, the atheistic evangelism of "intellectuals" like bully leftist-turned-Bush-apologist Christopher Hitchens is essentially an exhibition of utter contempt for most of humanity; an intellectualized I'm-smarter-than-thou (and just about everyone else on earth) argument.

(If you saw, or read, about Hitchens is-there-a-God debate with Chris Hedges, you'll understand I'm being nice when I say Hitchens is a bully).

For the record, most atheists I know are better Christians than most Christians I know. In fact, my sentiments about Christianity, in particular, are pretty well summed by paraphrasing that "evil," "religious," "nut" Gandhi: Christianity is a good idea, someone ought to try it sometime.

The weak point in the religion-is-the-root-of-all-evil argument is that it essentially ignores the likes of religious folks like Sojourner Truth, Tolstoy, Gandhi, the Islamic Gandhi -- Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Frederick Douglass, MLK, Rabbi Joshua Abraham Heschel, Dorothy Day, Bishop Tutu, Archbishop Romero, and the current Dalai Lama, just to name a few. These ethical giants are deluded evil charlatans? Arguably the most significant progressive movement in 20th century America -- the Civil Rights Movement -- was born and nurtured in the black church!

But an even more striking weakness of the atheist argument is that it simply overstates the case.

Bertrand Russell's famous essay was called "Why I am not a Christian;" not Why I am not a Theist? Clearly, Russell was an atheist-leaning agnostic but he had intellectual humility -- a quality in short shrift among Hitchens and company. Even more importantly (and this is why atheist proselytes are verbose fools) you can't argue religion out of people! Religious views change according to lived-experience; not dry, intellectual polemics.

Plus, if you challenge the way a person makes meaning out of their life, without being prepared to show them how to heal their fragmented world-view, they're going to put their fingers in their ears or attack. Fight or flight. A third way is needed.

As for "Islamofacism," let's get real you scardy-cats. Yes, there are sick people in this world who happen to be Muslims and who also want to do harm to Americans -- a truism that Bush seems to think is some kind of amazing insight into human nature. But the truth is: it's impossible for "terrorists," or any military on earth, to take over America.

Can terrorists blow up a nuke in a city and do massive damage? Duh. But that pales in comparison to the global apocalyptic threat Islamophobes lived under for pretty much their entire lives during the Cold War.

One Islamophobe wrote me recently to lecture me on "the true nature of Islam" and jihad and it made me wonder: Why assume the fringe fundamentalist reading of scripture is correct and progressive religious people don't know their own faith better than atheists with only an intellectual interest in the matter?

The latent bigotry can be seen when you consider that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not engaged in terrorism, which begs the question: Why do Islamophobes think a minority of Islamic jihadists are "real Muslims" and the majority of nonviolent adherents are somehow infidels? African-Americans are very familiar with defined-by-the-worst bigotry. There's the "exceptional Negros" and then there's "thugs" and "welfare queens" who are held up as the essence of black culture.

Islamophobes seem to think jihad is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. It ain't. So this foolishness that "true Muslims" are required to convert everyone or kill the infidels is pure BS. The Five Pillars are concerned about "right practice," not right belief.

Quick religious pop quiz: Who is the only religious leader to assemble a 100,000-strong nonviolent army? Answer: Muslim Pashtun political and spiritual leader, Ghaffar Khan.

What are the Five Pillars of the Islamic faith? Hint: Don't be fooled by critics who think jihad is one of them.

It would be nice if more folks could distinguish between opiate-of-the-people-religion and prophetic religion.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: atheism, religion

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AuntSally
Posted by: AuntSally on Jun 18, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the argument "Religion is the root of all evil" overstates the case; so why do you insist on framing discussion in this all-or-nothing manner?

The more salient point, made by the majority of secular intellectuals, is that those who cling to the substantial and cumbersome baggage of these mythologies - all for the supposed benefit of a moral compass - are dragging down society by sacrificing rational thought. We face serious problems (Hitchens, by the way, is no serious thinker). It's difficult to take anyone seriously as a powerful and useful thinker who subscribes to the notion that crucifiction of one man leads to eternal life, for example. When superstition supplants pragmatic, rational thought we can hardly expect results other than those we've had. Christianity, Islam and Judaism - even in their "unperverted" forms - hardly encourage rational pragmatism.

Exploring the undeniable spiritual aspect of the human experience is only natural. But basing everyday decisions on the specifics of bizarre mythologies, created by small groups of primitives of past millenia, is lazy and foolhardy and should be regarded as such.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Those lazy savages! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» None Posted by: RDVSR
» RE: None Posted by: factbased
» I AM SMARTER THAN MOST OF HUMANITY! Posted by: counterpoint
» RE: AuntSally Posted by: Vinote
» RE: AuntSally Posted by: factbased
Religion enables good people to do bad things
Posted by: cndc on Jun 18, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The weak point in the religion-is-the-root-of-all-evil argument is that it essentially ignores the likes of religious folks like Sojourner Truth, Tolstoy, Gandhi..."

The argument is not whether or not religion causes people to behave badly, it's whether religion enables otherwise good people to act in an irrationally "bad" way. When held to objective scientific scrutiny, religious beliefs are mostly absurd. The fact that a majority of human kind has these beliefs does not make them any more true.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Tolstoy rebuts Voltaire Posted by: hagwind
But the truth is: it's impossible for "terrorists," or any military on earth, to take over America.
Posted by: sospamme on Jun 18, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well,from where I sit, it looks pretty much like it was done before I was born. Of course the terrorists are not not interested in terrorizing America, since they can already do pretty much what they please, when they please, for about 5 or 6 years (at which point the news media like yourselves begin to say "hey, wait a minute...")

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nature of belief
Posted by: flapdoodle on Jun 18, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate your trying to present a different view- rather than just another opinion- on this subject. Where we get into trouble, I think, is when we try to convert (no pun intended) a belief into a certainty. The way we avoid this is to remember that if a belief could be certain it wouldnt be a belief. It is said that nothing is certain except death, and even that is uncertain as to 'when', not to mention, as to 'what'.
The problem then might have more to do with certainty than with belief, simply because absolute certainty can only exist as a fabrication or a lie. We tend to think though, that without certainty we would be drifting on a never ending sea of doubt, so we look for a rock of certainty to cling to.
But this nightmare is only a dream: In reality the very thought processes we are using depend on the presence of uncertainty, because when we become certain of something our minds shut down on whatever the subject may be, and so the process stops. We don't constantly go and look out the window to make sure that tree is still in the front yard. On the other hand, when we allow the presence of uncertainty to remain, even if only as a principle, the mind continues to work, and rather than denying the world, the world truly opens up.
My view is that religion has to do with the spirituality of the individual, an internal process that can't be reproduced, exported or mandated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

radical secularism
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 18, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think religion is the root of all evil. I believe in a secular society, but I'm not an atheist. I'm a practicing Hindu.

I'm a pro-life Democrat. I'm pro-life, but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I gave $1,008 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue.

I have no problem with atheism. Thomas Jefferson, the architect of American democracy, said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others, but it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my legs." Under Jeffersonian democracy, monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism and even victimless crimes are all tolerated.

This conception of democracy appears to me to be closer to the Vedic conception of government, because under Vedic civilization there was tolerance of different philosophical schools of thought, different yoga systems, demigod worship, ancestor worship ("pitas" or forefathers in Sanskrit), pantheism (advaita vedanta), and even atheists like Charvaka. The American Left is open to the idea of a tolerant multicultural, multireligious, multiracial and possibly even a multilingual society; the right is not.

Jefferson wrote, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others." Robert Heinlein in "The Notebook of Lazarus Long", also wrote that sin lies only in harming others--all other "sins" are concocted. In Vedic civilization, victimless crimes such as intoxication (rice wine was offered to goddess Kali) and even prostitution (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.11.17-19) were legal and regulated.

I agree that religion has no place in the secular arena and therefore oppose prayer in the public schools, but must simultaneously oppose the teaching of modern myths such as the theory of evolution in the public schools as well.

According to Vedic civilization, people fall into four different classes: educators, military, mercantile, and laborers. Only a certain class of people will have military inclinations, and a military draft forces people from the working classes to take up arms against their will.

Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of "Harmony: Voices for a Just Future", a peace and justice publication on the religious Left, notes:

"Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to 'a woman's right to choose' with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved."

For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn't dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?

There are non-traditional pro-life groups that make up "The Left Side of the March" on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc.

I'm not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.

Had Dennis Kucinch remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. Atheists and agnostics have nothing to fear: we really live in a secular society; one in which people only pay lip service to religious ideals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: radical secularism Posted by: InfinityDog
» RE: radical secularism Posted by: kewpie
» RE: radical secularism Posted by: xenacat
» RE: radical secularism Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: radical secularism Posted by: phatkhat
But Muslims Live Badly
Posted by: BlueKansas on Jun 18, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line with any religion is, does it improve people's lives? And in the case of Islam, it clearly does NOT. Especially if one happens to be female. There is not a single majority Muslim country that can be considered developed. Turkey probably comes the closest, and it is marked by an intense secularization effort. Then there was Iraq under Hussein, but that's been ruined and the veil is returning...

If you read the Koran or the Bible, every time you find a verse advocating compassion and other universal virtues, keep reading: hate speech will not be far behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But Muslims Live Badly Posted by: amatullah
» RE: But Muslims Live Badly Posted by: Gisele
» RE: But Muslims Live Badly Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: But Muslims Live Badly Posted by: amatullah
» RE: But Muslims Live Badly Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Point and Match, Amatullah Posted by: soulrebeljc
» Put this in your cauldron! Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Put this in your cauldron! Posted by: soulrebeljc
Is Religion the Root of All Evil?
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jun 18, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Means to an End...
Posted by: k_the_c on Jun 18, 2007 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps a more generalized observation would be that organized religion is simply a means to an authoritarian end. The evil, perhaps, are the desire to control and manipulate others and the willingness to be controlled and manipulated by others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Religion The Root Of All Evil
Posted by: marrieah on Jun 18, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of these day people will realize that religion in itself is a man made entity. It inself is not something that GOD made but something man invented to explain his understanding or awe with something unknown and unseen, but felt to be.

I personally believe in a higher power. Where that power exist is a place commonly called heaven. Is there really such a place as heaven, maybe, maybe not. I do know that there are certain things in our universe that can't be explained, thing that we attribute to something or someone called GOD

I understand that we all have the need to think that there is something bigger or greater than ourselves controlling it all, because it we really had to come to terms that our lives is what it is, we couldn't cope with the enormity of what we do everyday anyway regardless.

My problem is with religion itself, which on it's surface is seemingly something that someone found a way to exploit the very fragile insecurities of man's basic instincts. Let's face it there is a lot of money, riches and power to be made in religion. Just like in politics. Religion boosts that greater life or rewards after life, politics boost that greater life or rewards while we are living now.

Both takes advantage of mankind vices. Politics passes laws that either punishes the perpetrater or makes what the perpetrater does legal depending on who it benefits at the time, while religion forgives you for those vices in the next life, 'pass the collection plate please'.

In my limited readings about religions, I think Christainity might be the most exploited. I am however a Christain in that I believe deeply in the concepts of the teaching attibuted to one called the Christ.

I believe that the Muslim faith is a very valid one also. In fact I have to wonder why there is so much dissent between the Jew and Muslims faith since it's seems that the many of the conservative Muslims took their stript right out of the book of Levitius in the Bible.

What we in the west don't seem to want to understand is that while we are supposed to have separation of church and state, Muslims 'contitutional' laws are their religion laws and vice versa.
Just like in Levitus.

As I mentioned I do believe in GOD. But my belief in what has been taught to me all my life, no longer exist. I believe in love. And with that love comes this thought of mind from Shakespeare...."To thy own self be true and it will follow as the night the day thy can'nt be false to any man".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doing the right thing depends on knowing the right thing?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 18, 2007 6:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religious community that I am part of sometimes worries more about knowing the right thing than doing it. Hitler and any other dogmatic dictator run right over such folks.

Yet I doubt that the core issue is a matter of knowledge. As St. Paul noted, to paraphrase, "I do what I know is wrong. I do not do what I know is right." So, yes, forgiveness is necessary.

But times have changed enough since both Paul's and Mohammed's day to make me think that rather than any one particular organized religion, it is the belief that we can find a solution, a belief at the heart of religion, that we need most, despite our inability so far to agree on exactly what that solution might look like.

Even the strongest organized religion never has been able to do much against its misuse. Religion is less an answer than a willingness to keep up the good work. "By their fruits" we in the West have been taught "you shall know them."

Is there enough accumulated religious wisdom in the world to preserve the best we have to offer? Sometimes, evil takes on shapes that it takes a while to recognize. But evil by and large is banal.

Maybe what we need is to "keep our eye on the prize," to become fascinated with the infinite variety and beauty of goodness. Let the dead bury their dead. Love life wherever you find it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is not the problem TheoFascism is the problem
Posted by: freedem on Jun 18, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone that takes any religion and rips out all that is good and tolerant, and creates a hate filled, mean spirited, Theocratic monstrosity they claim is a Fundamentalist and therefore better version of their peace loving neighbors religion, needs to be called out for the pure Evil that they are.

This is true of Islamists, it is true of Kahanists, and it is true of Dominionists. They are much more like each other than their respective claimed religions. All want a rigid Theocracy where even thought can be a capital crime, all support wealth for the Rich, and slavery for the rest, and any crime is glorious if in their service.

But the Islamists have no mechanized army, no air force, no American Beachhead, no infiltration of most of America's institutions, and total subversion of many. The Christian Theofascists do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

boo hoo hitchens is a bully
Posted by: joenyc23 on Jun 18, 2007 10:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good grief. If this is the best you can do, please stop filling the internet with such utter inanity. Hitchens is a bully? WHO CARES. Why don't you read his book and evaluate his arguments rather than worrying so much about his personal demeanor? And ironically enough, to post a comment on this site I'm asked to agree not to make any personal attacks against the writer. If calling someone a bully isn't a personal attack, what is? I would suggest that people read Hitchens' book. To the commenter who said Hitchens is no serious thinker: His book is pretty convincing evidence to the contrary. To all you religious nuts out there: Get a grip. Your religions are man-made concoctions that have long outlived their usefulness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: boo hoo hitchens is a bully Posted by: OneAcre2012
Militant Athiests, Fanatical Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians
Posted by: neoplatonist on Jun 19, 2007 1:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have enjoyed the intelligent comments of so many diverse ideologies. It is great to see people trying to come to an understanding of the differences in religious perceptions and how they apply to us now. Even in having no religious beliefs, I think beliefs of some type are still displayed.

It is unfortunate that the atheists, who are now seen throughout most religious blogs, have taken such a militant stand against those that still wish to believe in creation or a non-evolutionary view. I am not saying that all atheists are militant and I am not saying that all religious beliefs preclude a respect for the evolution theory, but rather that, the atheists I've seen blogging are portraying themselves in a bad light by being antagonistic.

I don't think that these militant atheists even understand that they have made themselves into a "group." Whenever I see commetns from them they always speak in "we" and "you" terms. Atheists have made their own religion by default. Even though, each one will insist that evolution is now a proven fact and all religions are phony because they have a God, they refuse to see the value in the moral codes taught in these various religions. I assume that for many, like the title of this article, religion has become the root of all evil.

Tolerance, respect, understanding, introspection, and logic should dictate how we look at things unknown or different to us and how we treat each other. There will always be those who use their point of view to attack others, but that only shows the ignorance of the attacker.

As a Neo-Platonist, I believe in the beauty of discovery and that points of view have some value to offer. Why must it always come down to someone believing that their point of view must prevail over all others? Is this not what we are trying to get away from?

Even the first Christains, the Gnostic Chistains, tolerated other religions and still followed the teachings of Jesus. But, the Gnostics were not as aggressive as the fundamentalists and soon disappeared.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VIOLENT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 19, 2007 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... are to a soul, being used as pawns by someone else who could care less about them. Not a single one of them, anywhere on Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: VIOLENT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE Posted by: Doubtom
We were all atheists when we were born.
Posted by: emgscot51 on Jun 19, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We learn about gods and religions as children. Some explore religions other than the one they were raised in and convert, but most of us stick with the one we heard about first. Some of us are unable to believe in any gods. Perhaps it's time to stop our intolerance of an entire faith/group and save our dislike for the individuals who do harm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What "atheist evangelists"?
Posted by: heid on Jun 19, 2007 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire concept of "atheist evangelists" is inflammatory and simply absurd. That there are books deriding religion does not make those who don't believe in religions and their gods evangelists. When the author of this article used the term evangelist in conjunction with atheist, he clearly demonstrated his own bigotry toward those who do not believe in a god.

It has been religion and its leaders who have produced the most horrendous crimes of the last few years. After all, it has been the fundamentalist Christians who have been the biggest cheerleaders for super-Christian Bush & Co, who have launched war against another country, causing untold misery and death for millions there and the same for thousands from our own country. It hasn't been the atheists (with the sad exception of Hitchens) who have pushed for this war.

Perhaps it might be better if atheists were organized into a religious force and evangelized. We could hardly do any worse than the religious evangelists. At least, it's a reasonable assumption that atheists won't ignore good science and deny global warming or evolution. Since atheists don't generally believe in life after death, most will think twice before sending anyone off to war, since they can't justify it with the idea of "meeting their maker". Life is ever so much more precious when one realizes that when it's over, it's over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tolerence
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jun 19, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is my impression that atheists and agnostics tend to be much stronger advocates of the freedom of others to believe as they like, than religious people are of the freedom of atheists to not believe. I would go further and say that atheists and agnostics are stronger advocates of religious freedom generally than are religious people, who often seem to have quite strong opinions what others should believe.

I should probably add that I have no evidence to support these claims other than personal observation, but I do think this would be an interesting subject for someone to investigate.

It is probably worth considering that there is a very fine line between arguing strongly for ones own views and seeming to deny the right of others to believe as they wish. It really is not clear to me on which side of this line Hitchens falls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monotheism: Humanity's worst invention
Posted by: sausage on Jun 19, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually my atheism goes much deeper than merely being anti-organized religion or anti-monotheism, though monotheism is at the root of the world's many problems.

Growing up, I was taught that monotheism was the evolutionary culmination of human relgious thought: First there was animism, the childish belief in spirits or lifeforces in everything; then came polytheism, the ancient Greek and Romans' misguided and superstitious belief in many gods and goddesses; finally, with the ancient Hebrews first getting it right, monotheism! Now why having one all-powerful, all-knowing god was preferable to having many not-so-powerful, not-so-all-knowing gods was never really explained fully to my way of thinking, but I excepted the premise. This, I believe, is as good of definition of "faith" as any: Accepting any premise which cannot be verified or quantified, by empirical measurment or experimentation, as true.

By its very nature, monotheism is hierarchical (the supreme one sits at the very pinnacle of the universe followed by kings, popes, priests etc., on downward to the rest of us,)dictatorial (every utterance of the supreme one has the force of law to be obeyed without question,) and authoritarian (only select humans, kings, popes, priests, etc., with the direct line to the supreme one know and understand its edicts which everyone else must obey.)

There are now forces afoot, in Christianity, in Judaism and Islam, which wish to crush the past three hundred years of human achievement in the arts, culture and political democracy under the heel of a vengeful and dictatorial supreme one.

It is past time the human race grew up and cast off these dictatorial and imaginary supreme ones, be they Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah. They've been more trouble to us than they have been worth, and have been the root cause of much hatred, war and suffering over the course of two thousand years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just about God, the gods, or the no-gods
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 19, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most religions, political philosophies, and ideologies come in two distinctly different varieties: absolutist and relativist. The absolutist thinks the world is not safe (or saved) until everyone believes what s/he believes. The relativist usually has a general idea of "good" in mind but allows that there are various ways to achieve it and that no single religion or ideology will suit all persons or all peoples or all eras. Absolutists are often too impatient to let the power of their own example do the converting: if in power, they'll resort to force; if not, they'll make generous use of browbeating, guilt-tripping, shunning, and other tactics that either silence dissenters or drive them out of the vicinity. Relativism is popular with people out of power, and with good reason: it gives them moral leverage when those in power try to forcibly convert them.

Despite the great divergence in the letter of their various laws, absolutist Christians, absolutist Muslims, absolutist communists, absolutist capitalists, absolutist environmentalists, absolutist feminists et al. have certain things in common with each other. Likewise, relativist Christians, relativist Muslims, relativist communists, relativist capitalists, relativist environmentalists, relativist feminists et al. have certain things in common with each other, and certain significant differences from the absolutist proponents of their own religion or ideology.

We're getting way too hung up on the god thing. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" does make a good foundation for absolutism, but as Sean Gonsalves points out, plenty of believers go about doing what they believe is God's work in the world, and stuffing their religion down other people's throats isn't part of it. At the same time, humans manage to perpetrate all kinds of oppression, small-scale and large-, without being told to do so by any god.

And that's the important point: gods and theories tend to tell us what we want or are willing to hear, or what we're capable of hearing. Hence the myriad interpretations that get laid on the same point of doctrine. And hence someone who wants to cram his/her beliefs down other people's throats can do it in the name of Christianity, Islam, atheism, Marxism, Freudianism, or any other theory you can come up with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for the common sense...
Posted by: jhbeck23 on Jun 19, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm grateful for your clear-sighted and simply stated reminder that religion may be practiced badly, but can also be an immense support to personal development and social justice.

I'm sympathetic to the element of "self-reliance" in the atheist impulse; Emerson left the pulpit because he couldn't preach things he didn't experience, such as transubstantiation. But I too have found that atheism's public representatives are increasingly just like the worst spokespeople for religion. Different dogmas, same nastiness and bullying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To BlueKansas
Posted by: amatullah on Jun 19, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just in case you didn't hear me the first time:
Obviously, you know few or no Muslim women. We are not all oppressed Afghans, thank you. I wear hijab. I also work, go to school, care for my family (and that means being a full partner with my husband) and am a flaming liberal, along with a number of my Muslim sisters. People like you, who discount us out of hand because we are Muslim are the ones who attempt to silence us.
To equate the actions of government and societal conditions in places like Saudi Arabia with religion is a serious mistake. They may cover themselves with the cloak of religion, but they are no more acting in accordance with Islam than people like Jerry Falwell acted in accordance with Christianity.
What is also obvious is that your definition of "developed" is "Americanized." With the exceptions of Afghanistan, Saudia and to some extent, Iran (though Iran is a secular democracy in comparison with Saudia), women in Muslim-majority countries are far more free andself-actualized than people like you would like to believe. Iraq was so, until U.S. actions allowed the fringe elements to take over.
And yes, I've lived in the Middle East, in Oman and in Lebanon. I've also spent time in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country and a non-Arab one at that, FYI).
In sum, you are sadly mistaken and have made the common mistake of dismissing our entire faith because of the highly publicized actions of some of its adherents. So, stop taking the word of fake-edgy publicity hounds like Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali and ask an average Muslim about our religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To BlueKansas Posted by: hagwind
Believe if you want!
Posted by: The Populist on Jun 19, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is divisive and dangerous. 2000 years of Christianity has solved nothing!! In fact Christianity has fought the natural social and scientific progress of humanity every step of the way. Jesus loves me so I will kill you!! WTF?? That's why we hate religion! You can be a great person, but if you believe in that evil superstition, you lose your credibility. If someone professed to believe in the tooth fairy you would say that person is crazy, but if you believe in the evil, vindictive, bloodthirsty, jealous, violent Christian god, you have faith. Bullshit

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion can, and should, be argued out of people
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Jun 19, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you (author, readers) have not read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion I implore you to do so. There is no more compelling argument for why religion is a hindrance to the real progress of humanity. I was an atheist before I read it, and am now able to bolster my case, when necessary (and it comes up unnervingly often) with lucid and tangible scientific arguments - not just an appeal to the emotional sense of "look at all of the bad things that are done in the name of god."

One of the first things that the book was able to convince me of is that it is OK to challenge faith and belief. There is such a ridiculous taboo in this country (perhaps the world, I don't know?) on faith. Yes, we have freedom of religion - and thankfully so, I support the constitutional measure 100% - but that doesn't mean that any religion is right and true just because you have the freedom to believe in it. And a head count doesn't "prove" anything either. Most Americans would define themselves as Christians, but I've always maintained that if millions of people do a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing - quantity does not diminish idiocy. The troubling thing is that many people don't know why they have faith, and couldn't back themselves up in any argument beyond saying "I believe in the Bible," which means nothing to me because I don't believe the Bible is anything more than a collection of (grim) fairy tales that are entirely self-contradictory, not to mention brutal, violent, and oppressive in many, many cases.

One of Dawkins' most brilliant arguments is that our societal morality does not derive from religion, as most believers would argue. The fact that we pick and choose what things from the Bible to take literally and what to approach figuratively must be evidence that an external morality exists. If it didn't then we would follow the Bible to a T - and yet we take passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and say, "oh, well this was archaic and just something used in the time, but we've moved on" - oh, really? Then isn't the New Testament also archaic and obsolete? Which boils down to people essentially believe what the want to believe in terms of rationalizing actions and behavior by cherry-picking whicever passages in the Bible support their du jour fancies. It's entirely hypocritical, and is no evidence whatsoever that any societal morality derived from scripture.

I would also recommend Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation.

I firmly believe that religion can, and should, be argued out of people. It can be done tastefully, unlike Hitchens, but I do agree with his basic premises that religion is not only useless, it is entirely detrimental (and has been throughout the course of human history) to the progress of humankind. I challenge religion with people the same way I challenge politics. No taboos - I can defend myself from any angle, can you?

Here is a brilliant quote that more people should take note of as, once again, the question of faith is becoming a perverse litmus test in the presidential political arena.
"Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear they value faith. Is everyone caving in to this religious nonsense? What is faith but believing in something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value that? Formidable as the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to persuade Americans that having evidence for your beliefs is a good idea."
-- Peter Singer, Princeton professor of ethics, letter to the editor, The New York Times, Nov. 8, 2004

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A no-brainer?
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jun 19, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the possible exception of the Quakers, I cannot think of a single not-for-profit, organized religion, or one that doesn't manipulate its adherents into believing some truly outlandish nonsense.

On the other hand, while I see no reason to be militant about it, I also can't see much of a profit motive in the proseletyzing of atheism (besides some hefty book royalties.) Nor does atheism posit any doctrine which two separate branches of its practitioners might dispute, to the point of going to war over it. (Organized religions, of course, having gone to war over the most incredibly hair-splitting points of official theology; the winners always reaping the profits.)

So if the time came to actually choose up sides, I'd have to ask if your question is, in fact, merely rhetorical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Church of the Brethren Posted by: dkm
» RE: Church of the Brethren Posted by: Ellen Remore
On bullying...
Posted by: indradawn on Jun 19, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm growing more tired of this line of thinking by the second. In our society anyway, athiests have been bullied and marginalized ad nauseum. More hated than "illegals" and gays? Why is it that religion gets a free pass to "bully" those with whom they do not agree, insert their prejudices into public policy thereby foisting their religion onto others irrespective of their personal beliefs, and use hateful rhetoric to divide people (O'Reilley's "Traditionalists vs. Secularists", Dobson), while the minute someone dares to challenge this deeply-ingrained belief-system, they are attacked as a "bully?" Perhaps the religious are threatened by an uncomfortable truth. If this is not the case, then let the religious argue the substance of the "bully's" arguments. In lieu of this, we get, "Tell Christopher Hitchens to stop being mean to me!"

Having been raised by Christians, I still came to the belief in third grade that religion made no sense. I was "bullied" by classmates and teachers to the point that I learned to hide my world view from others. Living in the big giant buckle of the Bible Belt in Arkansas, this was a hard pill to swallow. I have long refused to enter into any kind of debate with any religious person about their religion for fear of offending them. What about my views? Why must I keep enduring the attacks and insults that I find offensive, only to protect the sensibilites of the religious? I have come to understand that this line of thinking only serves to remove my world-view from the discussion completely. In this article, athiests are being told to either acknowledge that which we don't believe or shut the hell up, something we've been doing for far too long.

Funny, the first people to speak loudly against an ingrained belief system are always attacked. Galileo, anyone? It doesn't really matter how "mean" or "nice" someone is when they make their arguments. Just the fact that someone dares to call religion out for what it is is enough. I for one am tired of being told to shut up. Sean, why don't you stop the playground tattling and stand up to your bully? What are you so afraid of? After all, that's what athiests are now doing--standing up to the real bullies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On bullying... Posted by: sg
» Here's your example: Posted by: indradawn
» It's hard to argue with faith. Posted by: Veronique
You don't have to be an Islamophobe to be afraid of the threat posed by Islamic extremists
Posted by: Indiosmith on Jun 19, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting piece, but shallow and with a garbled message: religion as the root-of-all-evil mixed in with the threat posed by Islamic extremists. Of these, the latter is, by far, the more important.

I think you underestimate the threat posed by Islamic extremists. Their object is not to take over America, but rather to destroy it.

You dismiss the threat lightly:

"Can terrorists blow up a nuke in a city and do massive damage? Duh. But that pales in comparison to the global apocalyptic threat Islamophobes lived under for pretty much their entire lives during the Cold War."

Here are some thoughts that might prompt you to rethink your position.

1) It's not just the destruction wrought by a nuke in an American city we need to worry about. There is also the matter of their ability to coerce the American government to do their bidding and to disrupt the American economy. Terrorists need only one bomb, maybe two, to have their way. Imagine the situation where terrorists threaten to detonate a nuke in New York if, for example, the American government does not pull out of Iraq, stop all aid to Israel and pay X billion dollars to the governments of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. The government calls what is perceived to be a bluff. The terrorists reduce New York to rubble with a nuclear bomb. The terrorists then reiterate their demands, saying they have 15 more bombs ready to detonate in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, Detroit, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston and Seattle. Panic, mass evacuations ensue. Stock and bond markets crash, the economy grinds to a halt, lawlessness and civil disorder sweep the country unchecked by U.S. Army and National Guard troops, many of whom are half a world away "bringing Democracy to Iraq." What American president would call the bluff? Say he or she did. A second bomb levels downtown L.A., the terrorists reiterate their demands. Game, set, match to the terrorists.

2) Knowledgeable authorities in the field of nuclear weaponry seem to think the possession of one or more nuclear bombs by terrorists is only a matter of time, given the significant amount of fissile material and tactical nuclear weapons poorly guarded and accounted for. The technology required to create a Hiroshima-type bomb is widely known and easy to replicate by technicians one level above Boy-Scout science merit badge.

3) The "global apocalyptic threat Islamophobes lived under during the Cold War" is irrelevant to the present situation. The reason the threat failed to materialize during the Cold War is that Mutually Assured Destruction proved to be an effective deterrent inasmuch as both sides feared destruction. Presently, terrorists not only do not fear their own destruction, they crave it. The threat of massive nuclear retaliation in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack will prove unavailing.

4) So what if the Cold War nuclear threat was greater than the terrorist threat presently? As I have previously demonstrated, a single nuclear bomb is enough to effectively destroy the American economy and undermine the U.S. Government. That's plenty to be afraid of without being a "scaredy cat."

5) Islamic terrorists are massed in the Middle East, where more than two-third of global oil reserves are located. They are armed, dangerous and determined, which raises the probability that they will succeed in taking control of oil flow from the region. A small but determined minority can seize power, rendering ruminations about the good intentions of the Muslim mainstream and their five pillars irrelevant. Motivated by a desire to undermine the Western economy, they could stop the flow of oil to the West, precipitating a global Depression far more severe than that of the 1930s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I hate to say this, but...
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Jun 19, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people!!!

LOL. I've been waiting to say that.

Okay, seriously, what we're facing is not religion, per se. It's fundamentalism. They can have different flavors, but they all come from the same source: fear. Fear of change usually sparks it. Why did Osama hate Americans on Saudi soil? Because the way American women acted challenged the prevailing notion of how women should act in Saudi Arabia among other things. Fundamentalism springs up as the equal and opposite force to progress. Look at what's happening in our country. The VERY people who say we should "kill all the terrorists" (may the Goddess rest Jerry Falwell's soul) are the ones who advocate men ruling over women in this country, incarcerating gays, incarcerating abortion doctors and forced studies of creationism and the Christian scriptures in public schools. Same feelings, different language.

The more we fight and spit against these people, the stronger they hold to their convictions, convinced that they are the mouthpiece of their god. I should know. I was one of them.

Sean is right, and I don't mean this as an insult. It is very difficult to break a person out of fundamentalism (be it Christian, Islamic, Jewish or Hindi) through the use of reasonable arguments. They're well protected in that area. This is about belief. The only way to change belief is through experience and the resulting disillusionment. That's what happened to me, I became disillusioned through some things that happened in 2004 (culminating in Bush's "re-election"). But, disillusionment is good, because you lose the illusion.

So, we aren't really worried or concerned about religion. Religion itself is a tool that SHOULD be used to better the individual and thus better society. However, fundamentalism corrupts the usage and purpose of the tool to destroy. Fundamentalism is our concern. I understand the frustration that people feel toward religion, especially when it is shoved down our throats. But, we make the mistake of becoming the very dragon we fight when we start slinging insults and derogatory names. It is possible to be an atheist fundamentalist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thanks for the chuckle.. Posted by: imcnotu
Reality Chick
Posted by: Reality Chick on Jun 19, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because a majority of people believe in religion doesn't make it so. If I recall, EVERYONE thought the world was flat, too, and lo and behold, it isn't. Religion IS based on mythology and even if everyone on earth believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't make it true. Religion is dragging down rational thought, just as stated, and one can only hope that, as we evolve...and, yes, Conserv, we DO evolve..we will let go of the group-think of organized religion and move into a future of rational intelligence based on reality and facts, not mortals walking on water, demons presiding over hell or 'prophets' who apparently live 900 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eality Chick Posted by: sg
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: indradawn
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: sg
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: indradawn
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: sg
» RE: eality Chick Posted by: soulrebeljc
Veritas
Posted by: Phil Sofi on Jun 19, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with most folks who discuss religion, you have confused Religion with Spirituality. While the Black Church was certainly instrumental in the Civil Rights movement, the church leaders quoted the same bible that the racists quoted to justify slavery. The movement itself was not a religious movement.
I am an atheist and I do not need a bible to tell me that slavery is wrong. I do not need a god to tell me that slavery is wrong. All I need is compassion and empathy.
By definition, religion is an appeal to some supernatural entity or entities to act on our behalf, or at the very least to not harm us. Those who find divinity in other places, like the self or nature, are using the term as a synonym for beautiful, or as an appreciation for some complexity and mysteriousness.
Unfortunately, because we are lazy or intentionally want to mislead, we bandy about terms that we have not clearly defined. Atheism, by definition, opposes religion; it does not, however, in any way contradict spirituality. This may be why your friends who are atheists seem "more Christian" than many of the Christians you know.
Again, you have equated Christianity with Spirituality. By definition, Christianity requires that one believe in an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent entity who controls everything, including consigning humans to Heaven or Hell. If you do not accept that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and sacrificed for your sins, then you are not, by definition, a Christian. You may be spiritual, but "you ain't no Christian."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Veritas Posted by: sg
Shawn's fallen off a cliff
Posted by: alblazo on Jun 19, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's plenty of evidence in Shawn's rantings to indicate that he may have lost a few brain cells before he took finger to keyboard to write this tripe.

Any person who can claim that he who would place dogma and doctrine above reason and evidence are on solid grounds to lead the rest of the world in efforts to emancipate humankind is surely deluded.

Keep this in mind: the theists he would like us to think of as reasonable believe that this kind of shit forms the foundations of human morality: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
~Moses (Numbers 31:17-18)

Yep, that's the kind of claptrap the entire god-worshiping crowd holds as the foundation of their "