Brilliant, Mr. Foley! I couldn't have said it better, myself, and I've been practicing for years. You've nailed monotheism dead center. Fox Mulder said, "The truth is out there!" Well, sir, now it's in here.

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

lets reject religion all together, it asked a lot of the human race and did nothing good in return.

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

Much as I enjoyed this piece by Foley, I was tempted to say, thank god I'm an atheist, but I'm an agnostic. We agnostics are usually held in low esteem even by atheists since we refuse to categorically rule out the possibility that there is (or was) a god or gods and goddesses. Fact is, agnostics don't know, and in my case anyway, don't really care.

Among the first lines in the Tao Te Ching is this little gem: "The way (tao) that can be spoken of is not the constant way; the name that can be named is not the constant name. The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth; The named was the mother of the myriad creatures. Hence always rid yourself of desires in order to observe its secrets; But always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations. These two are the same but diverge in name as they issue forth. Being the same they are called mysteries, Mystery upon mystery--The gateway of the manifold secrets."

(From Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu, translated by D.C. Lau)

This is part of why Taoism, properly speaking, is a philosophy, even though it is often thought to be a "religion." But even the best of philosophical schools gets corrupted.

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

An interesting approach that atheists, agnostics pagans and monotheists can all find common values and observations. Take a peek at www.pantheism.net.

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

Perhaps people en masse are starting to recognize the lunacy of monotheism. The various neo-pagan groups, a significant portion of which are true polytheists (vs. pantheists, duotheists, or monotheists) have been growing quickly since the 80's.

Personally, I am a polytheist and always have been. The idea that there is only ONE RIGHT WAY and ONE TRUTH has struck me as completely ridiculous in a world with such complexity and variety.

The world is too complex and beautiful to allow for one lonely, angry, male deity.

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

I've been a so-called spiritual seeker for thirty years.I've got a handle on it,to my own satisfaction(panentheism)--my best guess. I call myself an agnostic with a spiritual bent.

I'd never be willing to attempt to legislate a spiritual perspective or harm another over a mere guess.

Clearly,many are more than willing.

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

This article emphasizes several points made by Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade published nearly 20 years ago. One key point made in her book is the rise of domination-based androcratic (rule by the male) governments based on monotheistic principles of an all-dominant male deity and the devaluation of females in both social stature and intelligence as being of less value than males. Never mind the fact that large-scale human (and polytheistic) civilizations existed peacefully for centuries before the rise of Mesopotamian cultures (which are still taught as the cradle of civilization) some 5,000 years ago. Unfortunately, one other common theme of monotheistic cultures: the rewriting of history to suit their needs and thus perpetuating this unnatural heirarchy simply because other views of history are suppressed. Talk about inconvenient truths....

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

Nice article if you do not like religion. But I and many billions find it arrogant to say there is nothing beyond us, pathetic human beings. Obviously the world is beyond our comprehension even after all these years.
What the author did was blame God for all the disgusting things that arrogant humans committed.
We have to admit that this is not and can not be it. We have recognize our limits. Religion is beautiful and the universe is awesome. The great majority of Scientists were believers in a one God. So are intellectuals So are the great reformers.
God is a relaity. do not blame god for our own failures. On a personal level, a birth of a child and a moment of death, gorgeous nights with stars and ugly creatures, the diversity and yet structure of the world leads us to the only eternal reality.. God.

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

The theology Foley ridicules deserves it. However, to identify that with monotheism is also ridiculous—a very uneducated opinion.

The primary message of monotheism as found in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is that God remains unknowable, unspeakable, and that’s why the view Foley chooses to caricature includes as the very first of the Mosaic commandments the prohibition of idolatry.

Thank you Mr. Foley for the defense of that prohibition. All the reasons you cite are idolatrous. So what you ridicule is monotheism turned into superstition. There's a difference. Get an education.

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

Well said. Monotheism creates a situation where people attempt to claim sole ownership of that "all powerful" being. When you have many to choose from, its open. With many, humanity is reflected in the gods, or vice-versa, depending on how you want look at it. In this way, humans are very much made in the image of the gods. But with one, almighty, perfect being--how do you live up to that? You don't. But, you can sure as hell argue that you are and tell everyone else they're going to hell. Wonderful.

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

Robba29

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

Jesus is a myth. He never existed at all. While there are some great messages in the bible it was written by men not a god and long after Jesus was supposed to have been alive. Just like Adam and Eve the Jesus myth was created by human beings. There exists no written record of him from the time he was supposed to have lived. None. All of it comes almost 100 years later. There are zero documents that show Jesus was ever alive. We have documents of many others who lived then but surprisingly none for "the son of god".

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

Monotheism versus polytheism (or atheism) isn’t the problem; it is the dualistic psychology of the general population of the world that is the problem. When dualistic psychology latches on to any idea it always uses the idea to end up supporting an us against them mentality. In our dualistic us versus them thinking style, we almost always fail to see ourselves doing the very thing we want to make the “them” guilty of. For example, to say that monotheism is a problem that needs to be remedied is to ignore that calling monotheism a problem is just another form of us against them mentality (implicit in the thesis that monotheism is a problem is an us against them mentality). Realize that, in its most essential formation, monotheism is based on the idea of one (all one), not duality (us against them). The problem is not monotheism, it is the perversion of monotheism with dualistic thinking that is the problem; such perversion results in an idea of a god whose thinking is just as dualistically insane as the dualistically thinking humans who invented that god. The only problem is the idea of problems; it’s all born of dualistic thinking. Dualistic thinking is conflict based, monistic thinking is unity based. So, enough with the “dualism” stuff.

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

i think it is time to tell all the beautiful stories that come forth from earth, we need to hear all the stories. include all exclude none. from this place we can be truly present with complete awareness. now, alternet, can you provide a space for telling these other stories -- can you give a yogi space to speak of the hindi gods, a zen master space to speak of the many buddhas, a native american elder space to speak of the beauty and truth of the earth walk and a pagan witch and goddess earth worshiper to speak of the life giving mother and life giving sister. we who have knowledge can share it so all can see an alternative to the god cult. may we all become enlightened so we can treat each other with decency and respect.

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

Thank you for this refreshing article on the pathogenic tendencies of monotheism. For myself, I acknowledge only one litmus test for anyone's belief system: "By their fruits shall ye know them." In short, we can judge a person's beliefs about the unknowable only according to the effect that those beliefs have on his or her behavior.

If your beliefs make you courageous, compassionate, healthy, and contented, I don't care WHAT you believe about the unknowable. But conversely, if your beliefs make you bigoted, vain, hypocritical, and mean-spirited, I have no use for them.

And unfortunately, while there have been some truly gentle, courageous, and inspiring people among the ranks of the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), all three of these religions have, on the whole, done far more evil than good, in sowing the seeds of hatred, bigotry, repression, and genocide. Because the minute you posit "one God," the question arises: Whose god? And all three monotheisms answer the same: "Mine, not yours."

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

There's an interesting example of the effects of "One God Monotheism" playing out in Saudi Arabia today (as well as the rest of the world), and that's the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Modern Saudi Arabia originated in the alliance of a strictly puritanical Islamist by the name of Wahhabi who founded the Suadi religious leadership; the roots of Saudi Arabia lie in alliance between Wahhabis and the Al Sa'ud warrior family around 1750 - around the same time as the American revolution against British colonial rule.

The first action that they took was to persecute all those who worshipped sacred places, women who didn't walk ten paces behind the men, and so on (think Taleban). The notion of a focused god and the divine rule of the Wahhabis and the Sa'uds remains present right up to this day. The fundamentalist Islamic vision was heavily promoted by the US in the Middle East as a bulwark against communism; it also allowed the use of 'religious police' to keep the populace in line. The most spectacular backfiring of this policy occurred on September 11, 2001, when 19 fervent Wahhabis killed some 3000 people within an hour and a half.

The notion that "God is in everything" makes it more difficult to oppress and enslave our fellow human beings, as that would mean attacking God. Thus, tyrants prefer the notion of God as Lord and Master, with the said tyrant serving as the interpreter and executer of God's designs. If you want to know what the 15th century was like in Europe, or the Puritans were like in the days of the Salem witch trials, just look inside Saudi Arabia today.

Of course, the Saudi royals and their hangers-on (such as the Bush and bin Laden families) don't take any of this seriously - they just view religious fundamentalism as one of several possible routes to power and wealth.

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

Since I didn't see it mentioned above. Doesn't Christianity get critiqued for being polytheistic? The whole trinitarian thing can be pretty confusing, and makes dialogue and conflict between 'monotheisms' a little more complicated.

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

"I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic; I'm an acrostic -- the whole thing puzzles me."

- George Carlin

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

A primary problem with this discussion about the Creator is the failure to recognize that religion is based on the assertions of certain people about the nature of the Creator and reality. It is also obvious that religion is not the truth, hence its images of reality are flawed. Nonetheless, reality does indeed exist. Likewise, if someone tells lies about you, does that make you a liar or simply the target of lies? There is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth.

I wonder why someone like Albert Einstein, who proved his ability to outreason anyone on this forum, came to the conclusion that there was indeed a Creator of this universe? Also, he recognized that religion was folly. Religion and the Creator are not the same things. How can anyone who can't discern the difference come to a legitimate conclusion?

This is a bipolar universe and morality is an aspect of this universe, hence it is bipolar also. Because people observe the many gradations on the continuum of existence and conclude they are unconnected states only means they couldn't wrap their minds around the full problem, yet. It doesn't mean the problem or its correct solution don't exist. Similarly, because a fish at the bottom of the ocean can't perceive stars doesn't mean the stars don't exist.

None of the arguments or so-called philosophies that try to demonstrate non-dualism hold up to the simplest of thought experiments, much less math or physics. Read David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order and related works to gain a better understanding of our universe. The 11 dimensions of our reality exist as a continuum. The first seven (implicate order) are the spiritual conceptual "end" and space-time (explicate order) is the other "end."

Here is Wisdom!!

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

"The great religions of the world are ships;

poets the life-boats.

Most every sane person I know
has jumped overboard.

That's great for business, isn't it

Hafiz?!

- Hafiz

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

'Some [people] go on a hunger strike in the prison of the mind, starving for God. There is joy, ancient and sudden, in this starving. There is joy, a grasp of the intangible, in the flaming reverie breaking through the bars of thought.'

- Abraham J. Heschel

(one of the truly great ecumenical, visionary theologians of the last century).

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

One cannot argue with poets. The only relevant response is more poetry. And that's a great way to go. More, more, more.

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

The problem is not monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism or any brand of any of the above. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has developed, or is developing, their personal take on faith and what it means. It is very important as it informs your entire outlook on the important things of life.

That said, the problem is not that people hold to a certain belief, but that they are intolerant of the right of others who do not share it. There's the rub, as Shakespeare said.

The problem is not any faith, non-faith or philosophy. The problem is intolerance.

intolerant |inˈtälərənt| adjective not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own

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

George Monbiot wrote a fascinating article about a year ago which dealt with the origin of gods. Here's a link:
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/god-of-soil.html

The original seems to be no longer available on Monbiot's own website.

Anyway, his theory (based on someone else's) was that the type of religion was dependent on the type of soil. See, fertile soils made for stable agrarian societies, which tended to have 'gods of place': a god of this spring, a god of that tree, and so on. They also recognised the cycle of the seasons, which they put down to more gods.

Those societies based on poor soils were of necessity nomadic. Thus they'd soon leave behind their gods of place, so they had to have a god that travelled well, as it were. One they could pack up with the tents and take with them. So they tended to come up with just the one god (saved space). That god could then be relied upon to do anything they needed: a god of all work, if you like.

Clearly I'm not putting it as well as Monbiot did, but it's a very persuasive idea, and seems borne out by such knowledge as I have. And regardless of what you personally may believe, it's credible that soil type determined societal structure which in turn determined goddiness (goddity?).

I'm not a god-botherer myself, but I have no objection to those who are. What I do object to is having those godbotherers try to tell me how to run my life according to their precepts. Particularly when the actions of so many monotheists are so clearly at odds with their stated religion.

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

Couldn't have said it better m'self! One of the best pieces on the perversion of religion I've ever read! And I daresay there will be more such works from many others as time goes on. My only quibble is that it's not only monotheism that causes trouble. It's whatever religion happens to be in the historical catbird seat. Thank God I'm an agnostic! ;-)

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

i left 'god' and religion behind at the age of nine. for a long time i wandered without a philosophical nail on which to hang my belief hat. finally i found something that enabled me to believe in something. though i can't thoroughly understand it, yet it explains (to me) phenomena that otherwise have puzzled people for ages. SCIENCE. yep, quantum physics. i'm not a left-brained type (much) so before any intellectuals get on my case, i offer apologies for mislabeling anything. i'm merely trying to present an alternative idea here. consider: it is impossible to destroy energy. it is possible to detect electrical charges (emissions) related to thoughts. what if we were all beings created of energy, vibrating at different wavelengths? what if "god" were merely the sum of all the energies that exist... would that not mean that "god is everywhere" (where have i heard that before?) and "god is in us all"? (ditto). if this were true, then reincarnation could be true (which i believe). it could explain a number of what we term "psychic phenomena" such as ghosts. i've struggled to find something that i can believe in and this is far easier for me to subscribe to than the idea of some gentle soul who is going to return to observe a wholesale slaughter of anyone who doesn't buy into his brand of thinking, prior to hauling legions of "true believers" into a poorly defined "other space" (heaven) where they will be frolicking with zillions of those who have gone before (could this explain why the universe has to expand? to accommodate all those "souls" that keep coming up there?)
anyway, give it a thought. science, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

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

Within theological feminism, a distinction is made between revolutionary and reformist feminists.

Reformists recognize the liabilities and the potentialities of the Christian tradition, and seek to reformulate faith and practice.

Revolutionary feminists find the Christian tradition irredeemably patriarchal and oppressive and looks to other traditions or to new theologies.



Liberation Theology accepts that ALL faiths are from God and ALL beings are sacred and equal.

The fastest growing CULT in the USA is the cult of 'Christian'-Zionism, which is inherently anti-semitic and is a modern theological and POLITICAL movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel.

The Christian Zionist program provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it laces an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.

Christian Zionist doctrine is a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation that Christ taught-thus, the best way to understand the anti-christ is to see it reflected in this oppressive theology of empire, control, power and domination of others.


Public Service message from the
.org
WeAreWideAwake
+
eileen fleming

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

There's a very interesting and readable book by Jack Miles (it won a Pulitzer Prize) called "God. A biography", which makes it very clear, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the Bible, that "God" as expressed in the Bible, is in fact an amalgam based on a number of earlier gods from Mesopotanean, Hittite and other traditions, hence the many contradictory faces shown by God in different parts of the Bible. In other words, and simplifying greatly, particular peoples construct a god or set of gods to meet their needs at any particular time. There is certainly nothing absolute about any God concept, hence the utter futility of arguing about it. I haven't read the Monbiot piece referred to in one comment, but this idea would seem to fit quite well with Monbiot's.
It's clear from this, I hope, that I don't accept any organized religion as being better than any other, and eveyone should be free to sign up with whatever religion takes their fancy, or not, as they please. At the same time, I do not feel able to accept copletely the argument put forward by some neurologists that every kind of "spiritual" (non-physical) phenomenon is completely explicable by reference to a particular configuration of neurons, but that is as far as I think any reasonable person can go.

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

But can we not envision monotheists as seeing the world dualistically? To them, you are either a believer in the correct God, or you are not.

Often, monotheists can not get past that division to imagine complexity or agnosticism.

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

Foley's article and people's various comments notwithstanding, it seems that the most valid point in Sam Harris' book is that humanity can no longer afford religion! This is due, as I read him, to the mutually conflicting interpretatons of various scriptures that politicians utilize to muster violence between populations.

I actually disagree with much of the basis of Harris' argumentation, namely the Samuel Huntington thesis of "clash of civilizations." For a good refutation of that, one can see Amartya Sen's book, The Argumentative Indian, which effectively demolishes the notion that "Western civilization" has any kind of patent on scientific thinking.

But I also think that everyone ought to give serious consideration to Harris' point mentioned above.

The other thing I liked about Harris' book was his view that spirituality in humans doesn't depend on organized religion.

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

Not that it is really significant -- whether or not a particular person believes in god, gods, or the tooth fairy, does not provide support for the existence of god, gods or the tooth fairy -- but Albert Einstein, whom an earlier poster claimed was a monotheist, was definitely not one. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Einstein%2C_Albert#Religious_views

Too bad the beliefs of any particular, especially intelligent, person can't be used as evidence one way or the other, because the belief in god, gods, or the tooth fairy, would have come to an end long ago.

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

While I agree that Monotheism is a kind of lunacy that's very persuasive to people, I find it odd to call it out in a such an exclusionary manner. The Romans, Persians and Greeks (to name just a few previous empires) were all polytheistic at one time and all managed some pretty horric behavior.

Also, while Sam Harris might agree in principal with some of what the author is saying Harris' charge against religion is not about polytheism vs. monotheism nor even that monotheism itself is the exclusive vehicle for lunacy.

Harris' critique is that "belief" systems surrounding religion, of any stripe, are not weighed with the same rigor that belief systems are weighed in other areas of human thought (like physics, or biology, or engineering) and that this 'tolerance' has had profound and dramatic impacts on the real world, the world beyond faith.

Poseidon and Jehova are given equal scrutiny by Harris. For my part I don't see the distinction the author is trying to make unless of course we hold that polytheism is somehow more rational, less brutal, less repressive, less horrific when influencing human judgment, than its alternative.

The issue is not about one 'kind' of religion or the other, the issue is about tolerating irrational belief systems; like believing that monotheism is worse than polytheism; or like believing in "Total War" (Richard Pearle) or the "The War on Terror" (everyone under the sun), or "Alternative Interrogation Techniques" (our boy Bush et. al.), etc.

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

Aren't there ways address the problems of faith without discounting it as ridiculous?

And what a strange and romantic implication: that polytheism is somehow more "reasonable" than monotheism. like the previous poster mentions, there is no reason to believe that believing in many gods will bring about more ethical human conduct than believing in one god.

what a bizzare, intolerant article. i'm surprised this was published.

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

I've had it with coming to alternet for political information and seeing article after article that make sweeping, knee-jerk generalizations about religion and theology. Often, this goes hand-in-hand with some statement that we need science instead of religion.

If you're serious about science, you don't make sweeping, knee-jerk generalizations. You look at as much data as possible, which in this case would include both negative and positive aspects of religion. Theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether have looked hard at the negative aspects of religion without abandonning religion altogether. Also, "religion" is notoriously difficult to define, so a real scientific arguement about religion would have to start with clarifying what one means by religion.

There's a fundamental ambivalence in mothotheism that reflects a fundamental ambivalence in human nature. Monotheism can either be a kind of One God is Right, and it belongs to US kind of deal, or it can be an expression of the fundamental unity of all things, the universal parent (metaphor) who ensures the sisterhood (metaphor) of every human. There's a kind of atheism (this is not true of all atheism) that mirrors exactly the One God is Right argument. "If we were just to get rid of religion, everything would be fine." Which is exactly the same kind of inability to live with differences that many atheists bemoan. This article at least recognizes that getting rid of religion has not made everything fine. I read the Bible as religious documents, not because I think God wrote it down, but because it makes me keenly aware of both the promise and danger of monotheism (which is a fairly late biblical development, anyway). I think it's wiser to keep the danger in view, rather than looking for some escape into a utopian (perfectly rational, or perfectly good) scheme of things. I get the same message from the Bhagavad Gita, by the way.

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

Right on.

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

I can’t count the times when I’ve visited Progressive web sites and found myself agreeing with most of what I’m reading, right up until the moment when somebody starts talking about God.

“Universal health care, great!” I think, “Right on!”

“Make those corporation toe the line, FDR had the right idea when he clipped their greedy wings, right on!” I think.

“Put some teeth back in our labor unions, protect our workforce from greedy, uncaring employers. Power to the people, right on!” I think.

Now you’ve got me going. Get rid of “black-box” voting machines and return to paper ballots. Get our soldiers the hell out of Iraq, right freakin’ now. Subsidize day care for working parents, oh yeah!

And then somebody goes and starts ranting against people who believe in God. You know, those “stupid, moronic, murdering, brainwashed Muslims, Jews and (especially) Christians.”

That’s when you lose me, and a lot of other Progressives who just happen to be people of faith. And you wonder why you keep losing elections.

Showing open disrespect for the deeply held beliefs of your fellow Progressives is no way to win friends or make common cause with others. You can’t count on somebody’s support when you treat their faith like it’s some sort of disease. And REALITY ALERT!! you can’t win in the Electoral College unless your man carries a couple of states in the Bible Belt.

One more thing: please refrain from snide comments about the “intellectual” north and the “ignorant” South. Wisconsin (northern state) gave us the late Senator Joe McCarthy, a real towering intellectual if ever I saw one. Mississippi gave us William Faulkner, that dumbass redneck writer. North Carolina gave us Flannery O’Connor and Thomas Wolfe (you remember that ignorant redneck novel, “Look Homeward Angel?”)

Virginia produced those dumbass redneck founding fathers, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and of course President dumbass George Washington. How can these redneck dumbasses ever hope to measure up to Tail Gunner Joe or even the brilliant (cheated on his Spanish exam) Teddy Kennedy?

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

As a priest, although I appreciate his sympathies, human civilization is much more complex. The church, for example, had a complicated relationship with popular paganism, with some practical accomodation at times (making pagan Gods saints, for example, and mildly changing some of the rituals associated with nature cults), and suppression other times (although usually this was done against heresies). Paganism, being fluid, was able to survive within catholicism, in my view, and even within evangelicalism. What Foley needs to do is describe exactly what ritual practices are, and how they differe between polytheists and monotheists. Alas, to some they look perfectly the same. I admit, whenenver I do a wedding, it feels like I'm presiding at a bacchanalian enthronement of a virgin-whore. These are the Christian weddings. I wish Foley would just examine religion a bit more closely.

Suppression usually occurred not because of theology - the nature of God - but because of the church's relationship to property and its political position in relationship to the state and other states.

The author makes a simple religion 101 mistake: confusing the henotheism of parts of scripture with the radical monotheism it became. Insofar as all humanity is a reflection of the same God - especially his freedom - the flipside of true monotheism is political humanism. As the reconstructionist Freyer-Kensky notes, monotheism diminished the importance of gender.

Idealizing paganism is an interesting idea. What do we make, therefore, of fundamentalist Hindus? Of Shintoism? Was the Roman Empire a glorious place? It may have been.

The author should be a little more discerning. There are different sorts of monotheisms: the one espoused by liberal Christians (God is love - insofar as other religions reflect love, they are true; if they reject it they are false); to the ones espoused by fundamentalists (if you subscribe to the formal name and sets of beliefs, you are worthy of love). Both are monotheistic. Both paint a very different picture of God.

I understand Foley's desperation, however. May he find a nice pagan community, and a few of us Unitarians and Episcopalians will protest the war in Iraq with him.

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

What organized religion does is take away the individual's own divinity and places it on either "one god", Jesus or even "many gods." I believe (and yes, this is only my personal belief) that "spirit" or "god" or whatever you want to call it is in all living creatures - in yourself. This idea of one god that sits in judgement, was created by humans purely to control the behaviors of other humans, to enslave some humans and all animals and to control the resources of planet. When we see that we are all expressions of some creative force, that is within ourselves, we can let go of the judgmental, violent, vengeful idea of a "god" or even "many gods." The world will truly change when people stop looking to some religion that tells them who god is, what god wants, that they are shit for not believing etc... We have to love ourselves and know that we are all beings of love.

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

I, for one, also thought, even as a child, that the idea of a "Big Daddy in the sky" was ridiculous, and it seems no less so today. The dirty little secret, that no religion will ever admit, is that they are all guessing – none of them knows the nature of any possible higher plane of existence, for the simple reason that no one ever comes back alive. And, of course, anything passed down through oral history, as virtually all of both Testamants were before being committed to paper, should be highly suspect (anybody remember playing "telephone" as a kid? I rest my case...)

Original Sin, the prime motivating factor behind most Western religions, appears to be more of an allegory: a tacit admission that the human species is deeply flawed, but written in story form all those centuries ago to be understandable to a largely illiterate and ignorant population. (And, of course, the political implications of being able to push people around using fear of the afterlife should not be underestimated...)

The problem is, looking around America today, it is apparent that we may be voluntarily moving back toward illiteracy and ignorance once again – and the most alarming sign of this is the very same rise of fundamentalism here that is celebrated as a resurgence of religious devotion.

Anyone who knows of The Inquistion, the Salem Witch Trials and many other abominations throughout the last two millennia, knows that "that old-time religion" acted as cover for horrendous acts of brutality and barbarism. Is this what we want once again? I think not, but it is what we will get if we abandon humanism for blind faith – because blind is what it is. . .and deaf and dumb.

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

After 55 years in the Catholic Christian tradition, I've come to the conclusion that we have made a great mistake in thinking of God as something outside of us. It's not theology, it's psychology. The "one true God", aka "the Father" or "the Father/Mother" is our own highest consciousness - a transcendant connection to all creation - to all of life. It is being one with the One - an understanding of what "I AM". The "Son" (aka Logos / Christos) and the "Spirit" (Sophia / Barbelo) is the male / female aspects of the personality (action, reason verses reflective, intuitive). Angels ("gods") are the various aspects of personality. The conclusion of millenia of mystical experience is this, "There is nothing outside of you that is not first and formost inside of you." STOP TAKING IT SO LITERALLY!

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

Others who have posted have probably made the case for monotheism more clearly than I. Yet, having just attended a seminar on Christianity and its competition, I feel compelled to add my voice to those who try to point out that Mr. Foley really doesn't understand the subject he writes about, perhaps allowing his frustrations over the mounting tensions between East and West to boil over into his rant against monotheism, thereby trashing Christianity in the process.

Monotheism is the unique contribution of the Middle East to the understanding of how God relates to humankind, for it is in the Middle East that God chose to reveal himself in history through his participation in the lives of real, historic peoples. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and the Children of Israel (descendents of Jacob) is the God who persisted in his love for his people and their destiny, culminating in the fulfillment of his promise of redemptiom through the birth, life, death and resurrection of his Son, the Christ, born of Mary, and named Jesus, "for he shall save his people from their sins." Christianity is the culmination and the continuation of God's historic interation in the lives of real people in real history. The split between the first monotheistic people, the Jews, and the emerging Christian community, many of them also Jews, revolved around the inability of the people of the first Covenant to understand the fuller reveation of Jesus that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of King David and his descendents, while one, was also a God of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Council of Nicea and its great confession, the Nicene Creed, makes it clear that there is but one God, but three persons, in this one divine being, or essence. I wonder whether Mr. Foley ever read that creedal statement, or the third of the three great Christian confessions, the Athanasian creed, or studied the origins of the third monotheistc religion, Mohamadanism, (the visionary delusions of one man), before he allowed the influence of one author, along with his childish inability to think rationally, to muddy the distinctions among the three.

To do away with nonotheism is to do away with Christianity. A lot of people would applaud that, Mr. Foley, apparantly, among them. But to the great good fortune of Christianity (and for the world) is the promise of the one true God, speaking through his Son, "the gates of hell shall prevail against it."

In other words, Mr. Foley, "repent, and believe the Gospel."
Therein is the end of your confusion, and the beginning of your salvation.

Ronald W. Albers, MDiv.

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

Zoroastrianism has two gods: the good god and the bad/angry god. In Judaism, the one God seems both good and evil to us depending on your perspective, i.e. good for the Hebrews, but bad for the Pharoh. Lucifer was originally the angel which God asks to test people, like Job and Jesus. God seems to like test, like telling Abe to sacrificce his only child. But Christianity, in transforming the angel Lucifer into Satan, the Devil, with tremendous powers, is no longer Monotheistic and more like Zoroastrianism. In fact, the Fundamentalist Christians awaiting the return of Jesus, has the Evil One manifested in a leader pretending to be a peacemaker, who starts wars and ultimately, Jesus has to come back to fight him. Well, we do have a hypocrite "born again" peace maker attacking Iraq and his team is getting ready to attack Iran --- you can guess his four letter last name. So Fundamentalist Christians would gladly give him the presidency / commander-in-chief power in order for this evil one to hasten the coming of Jesus. They also need all the Jews to return to Israel so they can all be converted to Christianity as one of the myth's requirements for Jesus to return. You may have seen these Christians asking for donations on TV to get Jews out of Russia and into Israel. These gentile people passionately defend Israel, all the while with their own agenda. Don't let them fool you -- their motives are far from pure. Hinduism, which we tend to erroneously think of as polytheistic, is really monotheistically a belief in the one god Brahman --all its smaller facets/ gods and goddesses that we see are more humanly comprehendible aspects of the One Brahman. Therefore, Hinduism is more monotheistic than the dualistic Christianity and Islam. Buddha didn't even discuss god because he was too concerned about eleviating suffering.

P.S. someone included the Chalice and the Blade book in their comments. Yes, the author has great things to say about domination vs partnership, however, in her beginning of the book, she refers to history, one alternative view that came from "When God Was A Woman" by Merlin Stone. It will change your whole perspective of the story of Adam and Eve and show why women are still severely suppressed in most of the world and still oppressed in nations where women get to vote and own property and preach -- a very new phenomenon.

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

Alternet is getting really good at being a showplace for writers who are ignorant of both the history of religion and of the situation on the ground in American faith communities. These articles further display an utter incomprehension of the tactical difficulties that have developed for the left since the 1970's.

I think maybe the left as it is conceived by the blogosphere really deserves to lose, despite the fact that I support most of its policy goals. The kind of naivete about scientific endeavours, and the sweeping hatred of "irrational thought systems" displayed here is more reminiscent of Stalinism or Nietzcheism than of the authentic historic American left. You wouldn't get far with the Civil Rights heroes, the Catholic Workers, Woody Guthrie, the Berrigans, the farm labor movements, the Sanctuary groups of the 80's, on and on and on, talking this kind of hateful trash.

What's the plan, anyway? Committees of scientists to decide whose beliefs are allowable? How is the claim that "religion is a mental disorder" (oh thanks so much to the racist neocon Sam Harris) and the like any more helpful than the kind of things Ann Coulter says on a regular basis? Do you honestly believe that you can turn the country back to the rule of law and respect for the Constitution by systematically insulting most of its population?

Science, in case anyone has forgotten, is a discipline whose methods of discovery are (mostly) impartial, and can lead to very helpful and enlightening new concepts and understandings, but whose products and systems are mediated and delivered by the economic and social power structure. There is no more a single science than a single concept of God, or of democracy. Science is what we make of it, as are our political system and our various faiths. All of them are like fire: they can keep you warm in the winter, or burn down the house.

Now of course, I would be disingenuous if I did not say clearly that I do believe there is one God. But you don't know me at all, or my church, if you assert that therefore we are hurting, excluding, insulting, or ignoring the suffering of others. I can't help what goes on at "Jesus Camp" any more than you can help the fact that the Shining Path says its a leftist movement.

Further, if Alternet is truly serious about discussion of religion as a topic, then perhaps it would be helpful to turn to some serious and informed critics of the church, such as Dominic Crossan, or Elaine Pagels, rather than just posting whichever piece of half-baked hooey comes across the desktop.

There is a debate going on in the actual range of Christian churches in the US, as well as in Islam (as opposed to in the fantasy monster churches and mosques conjured by writers like Sam Harris), about the meaning of texts versus the reality of shared fellowship and experience. If you think we're all wasting our time, and that God does not exist, that's your prerogative. But if you think that debate is an irrelevant one being conducted by fools, you are wrong, and for the sake of our nation's future, dangerously so.

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

and she is pissed.

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

Ascribing the darker aspects of human nature to religion is really too much. Now we're being asked not to worship at all. In otherwords - everything goes, if there's a substantial minority that wants it.

What a crock of crap!

This is basically the handbook for anarchy and chaos, with some nihilism thrown in.

I went from reading every article, to reading some, to puking when I read most.

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

As a priest, although I appreciate his sympathies, human civilization is much more complex. The church, for example, had a complicated relationship with popular paganism, with some practical accomodation at times (making pagan Gods saints, for example, and mildly changing some of the rituals associated with nature cults), and suppression other times (although usually this was done against heresies). Paganism, being fluid, was able to survive within catholicism, in my view, and even within evangelicalism. What Foley needs to do is describe exactly what ritual practices are, and how they differe between polytheists and monotheists. Alas, to some they look perfectly the same. I admit, whenenver I do a wedding, it feels like I'm presiding at a bacchanalian enthronement of a virgin-whore. These are the Christian weddings. I wish Foley would just examine religion a bit more closely.

Suppression usually occurred not because of theology - the nature of God - but because of the church's relationship to property and its political position in relationship to the state and other states.

The author makes a simple religion 101 mistake: confusing the henotheism of parts of scripture with the radical monotheism it became. Insofar as all humanity is a reflection of the same God - especially his freedom - the flipside of true monotheism is political humanism. As the reconstructionist Freyer-Kensky notes, monotheism diminished the importance of gender.

Idealizing paganism is an interesting idea. What do we make, therefore, of fundamentalist Hindus? Of Shintoism? Was the Roman Empire a glorious place? It may have been.

The author should be a little more discerning. There are different sorts of monotheisms: the one espoused by liberal Christians (God is love - insofar as other religions reflect love, they are true; if they reject it they are false); to the ones espoused by fundamentalists (if you subscribe to the formal name and sets of beliefs, you are worthy of love). Both are monotheistic. Both paint a very different picture of God.

I understand Foley's desperation, however. May he find a nice pagan community, and a few of us Unitarians and Episcopalians will protest the war in Iraq with him.

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

The sad thing is, when using the word "faith," few people know that etymologically this word is connected to the word "fairies," so when faith is gone I guess you could say it equates to the death of all fairies...those helpful and capricious unseen deities.

If only more writers were philologists.

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

A: He's the guy who was supposed to plug a book ( "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason,") and induldged his own 'anti-clerical Pathos' instead.

And frankly, all the AlerNetters who were NOT hired to write the article did as well or better than Foley, who will be considered an editorial success because he garnered 152 comments.

But yeah, I gotta agree with the Religiously Offended ... this was a pointlessly annoying, jejune, purile and ignorant rant on a topic the audience knows more about than the official author seems to.

But, he did get 152 replies ... 153, with this one.

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

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Except what happens when Caesar declares himself God (as Augustus did!!!)????

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

What's the deal? He's laying out some pretty serious concerns about the nature of monotheism and how, due to the nature of oneness, it allows for conflict to occur when many different ideas of that oneness conflict. He's not saying that paganism or polytheism is better. He's not even attacking religion per se. He is attacking the ideological and ethical assumptions that come with the idea of of only one god.

Essentially, as I stated earlier, this sets up a situation where fallible humans claim ownership of that deity and proclaim to know the Truth. They project this unto others and act in evil ways, justified by their claim in the righteousness of their cause. The conflicts started due to this are too numerous to count. The Greeks never fought the Persian Empire because their god's were better. The Romans didn't fight Carthage claiming divine will. Not until Constantine did the idea of divine intervention and favor come to mean what it did. Since then, wars in the name of God have gone on. With many gods, or no gods, you have no such justification. Sure, you can pray to your gods for protection, but there was already an understanding that they may or may not help you depending on if they were mad at you. Their own humanistic characteristics didn't allow for beliefs in Absolute right or wrong. It reflected the relativity of the human experience. Monotheism, again, changes this: one god, one way, one right. But, with so many interpretations--who has the claim to this? Therein lies the problem. Therein is the rationale for this article.

So please, get the point and quit reading into it more or less than it is. Argue the merits of the case and don't make up shit. The question remains: has monotheism created more problems than it was supposed to fix?

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

So much bullshit about what is each individual's own responsibility to figure out.
What's for encore - fold the tissue 2 times and use the right hand for wiping?
If I am going to play any game at all, it won't be on Dubya's turf, believe me, he's got access to God and I don't, so good riddance to all that.

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

"Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst".

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

James Foley (and so many others here), I don't believe in the one God you don't believe in either. What you have rejected of monotheistic religions, I also reject, because all of that is not religion. "Religion" means "re-binding together" and anything that does not lead toward this re-binding of individuals into a harmonious re-union in Oneness does not qualify as religion. Instead, these are all human distortions of ideals that we all fall short of to varying degrees.

We are divine beings having a human experience. Each of us comes into existence with a unique package of potentials - strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, adversities. We each manifest our various potentials as best we are able within our circumstances and situations. We develop personalities as a way for our souls, the essences of our beings, to interact with all we encounter - our user interface, so to speak. We run into problems when our personalities take over; when we lose touch with the essences of our beings; when we lose our mystical connection to the Intelligence of the Universe, which is one good way to conceive of God.

The ideal of religion is that it must provide us opportunities to re-establish this mystical connection to God, through which we can find real guidance for our lives here in this material world. Religions have been inspired by and founded upon the mystical experiences of some of the rare beings who have reconnected to the Divine Intelligence and who have reported as best they could on their experiences. Others have taken what little they have been able to understand from these reports and used their limited understandings to begin religions. While their efforts have to some extent been successful, they or others soon after them, have introduced their own, small, selfish distortions. Although the basis for these religions has in general been mostly legitimate, the perversions of personality have taken over and the original inspiration has been mostly if not totally lost.

Continued below....

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

A religion isn't something you go shopping for in a supermarket. You either believe in the precepts or you don't.

What do you propose to do here, invent a designer religion? I suppose your pagan dieties will just spring into existence because you want them to?

Or do you cynically think you'll just create one and peddle it to the masses, not believing it in yourself but using it as a form of crowd control?

Bah. I'll say it again! Bah!

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

AND for the patient spiritual progressives, bless your hearts...

Pulling the chair out
from under your mind
Watching you fall
Upon God.....

What other fun is there
for Hafiz to have
in this world?!

- Hafiz

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

When asked if he believed in God or religion, Carl Sagan just said, I do not know.........WOW, I miss that man.

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

Some of you may remember a researcher from the early part of the last century with some insight to the Human Predicament, name of Sigmund Freud (Ironically, that's "joy" in German). He wrote a slim volume at the end of his life, as the Nazis consolidated their power, in 1939. Herr Freud speculated that the rise of Monotheism was an evolutionary step in establishing the limitations of wielding political power. That is, one abstract authority of supreme power trumps a terrestrial one with alliances to several gods or goddesses. A code of ethics that transcends rank becomes the ally of the slave, the disenfranchised, the revolutionary.
I agree in general with the comments about the perversion of spirituality into political power—indeed, the powerful will use every tool available to consolidate and enforce their privelege. That said, I also believe that this evolutionary process is not over. In the same way that ontogeny recapitulates philogeny, our relationship to "God" recapitulates our own development from infancy to adulthood. We have moved from the untouchable, to the god one may reason with, to the god as human incarnate, to the god of action on our sphere of existance. Islam is the last of these. No, I'm not islamic, monotheistic or religious. Just a student of humans.
The next step would appear to be the internalized god, the self actualizing god . . .
But that leads me to another student of the Human Predicament, Abraham Maslow (funny, its the creators of Monotheism thst have so much to say about it) and the realization that intervention by society as a whole is necessary for ALL OF US to move up the Hierarchy of Needs in order to create this new paradigm. Which brings me back to politics.
If we can't arrange to get everyone fed, secure, and reasonably safe, the paradigm shift can't happen. For that reason alone we have to limit the access to governing and regulating power of the Greedheads that now occupy most of the important decision making posts relevant to the above. Scarcity=sales and profits=endarkened populations.
Unless you're wandering in the desert and really desperate . . .

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

While I agree with the general thrust of the argument, that monotheistic religions are inherently a "bad thing" what with Abrahams "chosen people" message having a chilling counterpart in Hitlers "master race/one people", I have to point out that not all polytheisms are of the "nice sweet sugar sugar" school of thought.

In fact one of the most evil organizations in the history of the world, namely the Catholic Church (any who doubt read some history books) is at heart a polytheistic system of belief. The saints take the place of the various demi-gods/gods found in other religions, many actually based upon these earlier figures, St. Bridgette of Ireland for example, with the main "Sky God" Yahweh hardly touched upon. (This in itself is similar to some African religions were it is believed the creator left the world in charge of lesser gods and disappeared after the initial creative event.) Indeed, even the statues of Saints, and their festivals in Catholic countries is evidence of their earlier pagan nature.

Unfortunately, any system of belief is going to be hijacked by small minded, unpleasant xenophobes (like St Augustus) be it mono, poly, or pantheistic - it isn't realy the religion that creates the behaviour, though it no doubt helps, but rather provides both reasons and excuses.

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

There is no objective proof for the existence of a deity, and the universe can be well-described by the impersonal operation of natural laws. There is clearly no need for the god hypothesis (mad props to Laplace!), but the majority of humans seem incapable of letting go of it. So let them be irrational if they wish, as long as they don't force it on me or others with the courage to reject it.

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

Just a thought. Ancient texts and myths around the world speak of different gods. Some speak of their god as The One God which seems to cause the problem. How about this. One Creator created the universe and all in it, including the so called lesser gods, probably nothing more than beings a million or so years ahead of us but who looked and acted like gods to the ancients who believed they were. So now god has a personality, he comes and goes in pillars of fire (rockets), moves around in fiery chariots (flying vehicles) that spew fire and smoke, and does all kinds of amazing things. Now go back and read the Bible, and ancient myths from around the globe, the Sumarian creation myths, the Indian Vedas, Chinese myths, etc. Read those accounts with your 21st century awareness of technology. What are they describing to you? Think outside the box. Our religious gods are not likely gods at all but someone else that we have been killing ourselves over for 10,000 years. Oh! and God the one with The Big G, perhaps we are all a part of that great unknowable conciousness whatever it might really be. So, since the jury is still out on God, maby we should just try to get along and stop throwing our gods at each other.

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

The smallest of points overlooked by religion and society will soon alter the largest of equations and render all the interpretations MEANINGLESS!

www.stephentree.com
Predicted Tsunami and Hurricanes in book written in 1993 in order to reach his family. (YOU) See what they said before and after posts up to a month before each event and written in book.
The smallest of points overlooked by religion is that they did not get each block from Spirit, but like a law created an interpretation which they demand the whole world worship.

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

But then came first grade, second grade etc.

There is a religion that was not mentioned in the above that teaches that religions are like first grade, second grade, etc and also believes in monotheism.

The Baha'i Faith teaches that the major religions of the world all talk about the same thing and are all true. That every five hundred to a thousand years God sends a new teacher to restate to the world what is valid. That the major religious concepts of doing good and the golden rule are in all religions. That where they differ are in the minor details that also serve the community at that time, do we dunk or sprinkle.

For example when there is no refrigeration pork can go bad. This is no longer true for this day and age. The problem is when those of the last established religion cannot accept the tenets of the next. And the priests wishing to maintain their power over people jump to the obvious conclusion from their point of view, 'Oh you must be talking about some other god not my God'.

The Baha'i Faith also says that science and religion should agree."Science without religion is materialism, and religion without science is superstition."

Some other tenets of the Baha'i Faith:
Equality between men and women.
Elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth.
Elimination of prejudice of race, class, gender.
One world language.

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

The article was fantastic, telling it how it is and I so do believe that there are many paths for many different people and it is all in believing totally and living ones life as such too. Believing in our own heart the truth and the truth can be different to many also, but if it is truthful fine with me. I also believe we were all put here or sent here to planet earth to learn lessons and are at the moment in one of the most controversial lesson of our time, also believe all will work out well, thanks.

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

Interesting...in the case of monotheism...it always seems to me that God is a greedy male...usurping everything...from the great flood....hmmm bad design..to the plagues...to the millenia of murder, rape, guilt,genocide,plunder,and eternal hell for those who do not subjugate themselves to this monotheistic ideology...strange the majority of the prophets were male too...odd the world has been at the con trol of the patriarchal system it seems forever...I dont know...just thinking outloud I guess

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

well, these are things i have thought about for some time, monotheism and all and what i am thinking is this. judaism resulted in the end of human sacrifice in that part of the world in which it arose (see the story of abraham and issac, or the muslim version) this resulted in a cognitive shift. from "magical thinking" (maybe we were better off then?) to our "modern" thinking. just imagine what people were striving to get through human sacrifice (jesus as ultimate, and seal, of all sacrifice) and then in what manner do we redirect the thought process that is at play in this drama? what's the role of neurotransmiters, altered states, psychotropic drugs etc in the psychic evolution of our species? personally i think the hindus may have something going on...

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

It is important to recognize in this discussion that we as humans are in a peculiar and very temporary form vis-a-viz broader reality. It seems that talk of a 'creator' as some kind of 'mind' or bounded rational being unduly renders the discussion anthropomorphic, when in fact we need to recognize the temporariness of our human form. In a mere sixty years, if I live in human form for long, I will again meld into earth/space, and perhaps 'my' sense of reason will be free to fly through a space/time far broader than this human form allows. Who's to say that the human form is the most highly developed?

Sorry, no time for rewrite, so I'll leave it there.

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

Since neither you nor those commenting mentioned I F Stone I will. To garble the words of I F STONE, "Motheism is the beginning of all intolerance..." or something like that.
Maybe a Stone scholar can correctly quote him.
As the campaign of '06 winds on I am going to reread Stone-if I can find it free on the web.

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

All this may be so, but then why not start a new multi-god religion? We do have freedom of religion, at least in the West.

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

I suggest you stick to things you know instead of shooting your mouth off. Your reference to ¨fundamentalist Hindus¨ is a misnomer any way an intelligent, educated person looks at it.

Unlike Christianity, there is no term like martyr in the Hindu context because all killing (including of animals) is a sin in Hinduism. No exemptions are allowed as all killers will have to face their karma. The reason why there is no record of a holy war ever started by Hindus is simply because there is none, unlike the Christian Crusades.

The so-called Indians in India whom the western press so quickly label ´fundamentalists' Hindus (but at times actually consist of Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and yes, at times, even Muslims as well) are those who are against ultra-rich evangelist Christian organisations who come to India under the guise of doing charity work. However, their building of orphanages, training centres and handicraft workshops are for the sole mission of converting the young or enticing the people to convert. Those who refuse to accept Christ are usually ejected from the programmes and their hand-outs.

Who, pray, is the fundamentalist here - the christian zealots, who under the guise of NGOs, come to India with a conversion-at-all-cost agenda or those hindus who are trying to defend their dharma?

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

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess......That Jesus Christ is Lord.

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

I've been touched, impressed and moved by the comments that people have written in the last week to me and about this article. At the moment there are 285 of them which print out to 75 pages of small font. Amazing. Mostly the comments are thoughtful, articulate, remarkably well written, knowledgeable, heartfelt and many are long. I am grateful for all of them and I thank everybody -- and I mean everybody -- who has written. Bravo as well to alternet for making this possible, and for attracting such a lively, engaged, community of readers. In these weird times, this is all very good news.

I will say more in a later post - after I absorb better what people have said. But I'd like to offer special thanks to Robba29, who at one point created a thread titled: "Everyone Attacking the Author." Robba said:

"What's the deal? He's laying out some pretty serious concerns about the nature of monotheism… He's not saying that paganism or polytheism is better. He's not even attacking religion per se. He is attacking the ideological and ethical assumptions that come with the idea of only one god."

Right. That's it. And particularly the dangerous, loopy psychology and politics of Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism. Robba29, thank you for that.

And thanks as well to the absolutely sincere fellow who ended his own review of the history of monotheism urging me to "Repent, and believe the Gospel." I probably won't be taking that path anytime soon, but I am a fan of data, and he provided wonderful, fresh evidence, right here on the site, of precisely what I was trying to describe.

I'd like share a bit of an authentic bit of American political satire I received recently. It seems to me oddly on target for this discussion, in the spirit of: "if you have lemons, make lemonade." The form apparently goes back to at least 1930, periodically reinvented with new, timely details. Some people may have seen this, which captures well my view and no doubt that of many others readers of alternet.


THE 23rd QUALM

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

-JF

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

I haven’t read Mr. Harris’s book, but I’ve read your article on it. Based on that it looks like yet another tired flogging of the dual thesis that monotheism is bad - and that all monotheistic religions are essentially the same, and all deserve blame for the troubles of the last 2000 years caused by ‘monotheism’. That this is a falsehood caused by oversimplification is revealed when one takes a moment to reflect that two monotheistic faith groups also place a high value on proselytizing. Both Christianity and Islam have given increasing the number of faithful a high priority since their earliest days. In both cases the result has been the creation of vast empires and the elimination and/or suppression of other faiths. Major denominations within both Christianity and Islam continue this practice to this very day. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of either Judaism or Zoroastrianism, as well as some minority denominations within both Christianity and Islam. Therefore, one must conclude that the problem lies not with monotheism per se. The problem is with evangelizing, jihadizing, proselytizing monotheists who insist that their faith MUST supersede ALL others.

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

Directly next to my article is an ad for the new movie, "Jesus Camp," with a trailer showing one of Jesus Camp's founders explaining that she is creating training schools for American Christian youth like those of Islamic fanatics. The President of the U.S., an apparently sincere fundamentalist Christian himself, refers to his mad Iraq war as a "crusade" and declares that America is experiencing a Third ["Great" Religious] Awakening. The Pope, speaking in Germany, chooses to quote a medieval text describing the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman." The President of Venezuela, playing to audiences back home, says at the United Nations that the U.S. President is the devil and leaves a sulfur smell. In response to news of the Pope's comments, an Islamic group calling itself "The Lions of Monotheism" blows up a number of churches declaring "holy war" on the Pope.

That's only some of the immediate context in which I wrote my article - as well as the recent war between the Jewish state of Israel (with U.S. support) and the Shia Islamic warriors of Hezbollah (which means "party of God"). Above all I tried to say that people who believe in the angry, authoritarian, punitive, mono-God of ancient texts have become quite dangerous in the world today. Because of the enormous power of the U.S., I think what is happening here is the most dangerous of all.

[Because of comment space limitations, this is continued in the next thread]

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

[This picks up from the previous thread]

Right now, a week after it was posted, there are 287 comments on this article. It is the second most read, the third most emailed, and the second most discussed article at AlterNet. I never imagined it would get this kind of response. Wow.

After going through them all, it seems to me the comments roughly divide into a few main groups. These are:

1. Some people who liked the article, think it said well some things they agree with, and are glad to have it out there.

2. Many people who are interested in whether non-monotheist religious beliefs of all kinds are better than, worse than, or just different from the monotheists' major brands. This is a huge topic with many sub issues and people went into lots of them, sometimes quite knowledgeably.

3. People who think the author is seriously misinformed, ignorant, wrong, or just a flat-out idiot about something important. Most explain what they regard as the correct facts and interpretations.

4. People with progressive politics who are also serious believers, members of churches, or even pastors, almost all of liberal, tolerant varieties of Christianity. They are also among the more eloquent members of group 3.

5. A mishmash of others including my absolute favorite, the RevRon, who personally promised me that repentance will provide "the end of your confusion, and the beginning of your salvation." In his review of monotheism's history he demonstrated precisely the point I was trying to make: People of good will and good heart will earnestly distinguish their sky god from the others claiming they possess the true knowledge while the others offer heresy. And like RevRon, the believers make these distinctions entirely about the supernatural.

I deeply appreciate the comments of people in group 1, especially robba29, ktflake, and teillis who said:
"all three of these religions have, on the whole, done far more evil than good in sowing the seeds of hatred, bigotry, repression, and genocide. Because the minute you posit 'one God,' the question arises: Whose god? And all three monotheisms answer the same: 'Mine, not yours'."
And also sunflwrmoonbeam who said:
"Monotheism ignores inherent variety" and "the world is too complex and beautiful to allow for one lonely, angry, male deity." Yes, sister, yes.

I enjoy the pan-religious comparisons of group 2, and I realize that I started it all, but they were not my central concerns. Right now - in the world today and for the foreseeable future - monotheism is by far the biggest, most threatening, lethal, explosive, ancient "faith." Houston, we have a problem: literal, classic, old-time monotheism. Think of the god painted by Michelangelo, which you can see at these three links:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/2-God.jpg
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/2r-Stars.jpg
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/1-Genesis.html

At this point, it doesn't seem practical to try to respond to the complaints of group 3 or the various matters raised by group 5.

The issues of group 4 are complicated, quite relevant to my main concerns, and I hope to briefly address them in a subsequent post.

-JF

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

"How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." Here I post an interesting piece from Penn Jillette - yes, that Penn Jillette - who has a thing or two to teach us about leaps of faith the Kierkegaardians didn't anticipate, such as the atheist's creed "I believe there is no god." This was originally broadcast last year on PBS's "This I Believe" segment and can be heard at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Morning Edition, November 21, 2005 · I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

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