# Why religion posions everything



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Intersting article in the Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 855247.ece

This guy seems even more rabid than Dawkins. Could be my new idol, and I've got to buy the book.

"The point is,? he says, ?religion should be private: I am not paying my taxes to support it. I?m not going to have children taught that metaphysical things are true.? America, where secular education has come under protracted attack from Creationists, is ?the territory of contestation at the moment?.

"Religion, he writes, is ?violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children?.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ah Martin,
I really don't follow you wherever you go, but my interested was of course piqued by your post.

Unfortunately Hitchens is losing his credibility as he goes to extremes. This is the problem. He is a complex person, but I don't trust him or respect him.

And I never said that many of his comments above aren't true, but I attribute them first to tribalism, culture, class, and then to the religion that springs from the former.

Re: Hitchens from same article:
*"Others recall his generous patronage when they were young journalists, of the soir?es at his Washington apartment, which these days are the DC parties to attend. But there is disdain also, and a sense of betrayal. ?A busted flush? is how one former admirer describes him, referring to Hitchens?s political gymnastics since 9/11 that have led the former Trotskyite to support the invasion of Iraq and, in 2004, the reelection of George Bush.

Defending the war has cost him prominent old friendships and forged him unlikely new ones, foremost with the arch neocon Paul Wolfowitz. But now Hitchens is back in his most acclaimed role, the dashing prosecutor. And the former tormenter of (among many) Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, Kissinger and Clinton is levelling up to the big guy Himself."*

I place him along with .... I'm sorry, Michael Moore, Jerry Falwell (RIP), Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, etc. They lose their appeal after a while, and again, their credibility.

PS: *MARTIN PLEASE READ MY FORTUNE .. IN YOUR YODA SECTION. I POSED A QUESTION.*

L,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, if the word on the street is true, Hitchens supports wiping out Iraq as it is then a "religious war." That stinks. For Fundamentalists perhaps it is, but I hope to God (forgive) that isn't true. E.G. -- Fundamentalist Muslims as we know are extremely dangerous, so lets get rid of the Muslims (all the Muslims? their religion? and the world will be fine.)

Now it's not "No War For Oil" he's talking "WAR FOR Destroying Islam".

I really think that is a conspiracy theory interpretation of Hitchens, but his loyalties are all over the place really. And again it shows, one can be a Communist who switches to a Conservative (hence he is a neocon, LOL) and still hate God.

OMG, the world is insane, LOL.

And why attack Princess Diana? WTHell did she ever do to him, LOL. 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*"Hitchens has decided that 9/11 is the defining moment ? just as the Second World War was to his naval officer father ? and fundamentalist Islam is his glittering nemesis. 'It is a war to the uttermost with the original form of totalitarianism, which is theocracy.' "*

EDIT: so he is using his anti-God stance as justification for war? How else can one read that? Religion is poison so we should support an insane war to get rid of religion? :shock:

This is where any strange rumors of Hitchens might come from.

And this would be the accusation against Bush, that Bush is fighting a "Holy War", Christian vs. Islam. We KNOW that bin Laden has decreed an official Jihad ("religous war") against the US.

So did the US go to war for religion? democracy? secularism? oil?

And ironically, Hitchens was one of those "idiot half of the US population who voted for Bush."

Ah Martin, I'm sorry, I AM confused why you would admire this man as he is so full of inconsistencies and things you abhor.

At any rate, I'll sneak into Barnes & Noble and see if I can read a good bit of the book on the sly. Great free reads in comfy chairs 8)

I also see that this WILL be read with fervor by the Americans. It's tantalizing. It's good for a huge argument at a dinner party.

As I always say, and now I want to order the thing but can't afford it, life is extraordinarily complex. And I agree, as does Hitchens, that secularism does not offer the comfort of ritual. He still holds Passover, and one daughter goes to a Quaker school? And they put up a metal Christmas tree every year! Good LORD I send out holiday cards that are "non denominational". And no, no tree, and no, no rituals save perhaps my yoga which is a sort of ritual yes.

The man is a mass of contradictions. Don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

BUT, *every person has a right to read his books. If someone on the tube gets after you for this, give 'em a swift kick. * I'd gather it will be very de rigeur sp? to be found reading this in more "intellectual areas" Sigh. NYC, LA, San Fran, Chicago, here in my Uni Town, etc. Definitely in the Ivy League.

OK, done, I am avoiding the last of revising HTML which at this point is killing me with tedium.

I think I'm finished now. I want that book.
I want to visit London and have a bunch of the gang to meet with and yack about stuff like this.

Cheers,
D


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

Seems like a pretty interesting guy, I like these militant atheists like Dawkins I think they have a crucial place in the scheme of things even if I dont believe in a lot of what they say, but it seems to me that these guys know that they cant criticise Islam without getting stabbed or getting their heads chopped off so they have to do it through the back door by criticising religion or God in general, I suspect that this is their true purpose anyway.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Pablo said:


> Seems like a pretty interesting guy, I like these militant atheists like Dawkins I think they have a crucial place in the scheme of things even if I dont believe in a lot of what they say, but it seems to me that these guys know that they *cant criticise Islam without getting stabbed or getting their heads chopped off so they have to do it through the back door by criticising religion or God in general, I suspect that this is their true purpose anyway.*


Hmmm. Pablo, I take a dim view of this statement. Forgive.

This is *exactly* what I say about Michael Moore. If someone has the courage of their convictions -- such as Salman Rushdie sp? sorry who wrote "The Satanic Verses" -- God Bless 'im -- they are not afraid to speak out, and I have great admiration for them. Many have died for their convictions.

Moore has lost all credibility with me. He tells the basic truth about things, sort of, and he addresses very important issues. But when he fudges, jokes, misrepresents -- WHY? He can work with the Truth. I find him a coward as well. And he reduces things down to the simplest concepts/images. Well, primed for the huddled masses to get a "Cliff Notes" version of the Truth. :roll:

*I highly doubt that Hitchens has the intent you state. If he did, if he were masking an anti-ISLAM POV while hiding behind atheism, and is actually a practising Jew or Christian that would be the utmost in hypocrisy.*

I don't like him to begin with, but that is beside the point. He has every right to put out this book as anyone else. But if it is cloaked in another agenda, well, I won't trust much of what he writes anymore ... past, present or future.

But I never trust someone who doesn't have the courage to follow through FULLY with the courage of his/her convictions.

One does not need to twist the Truth to tell the Truth. That always mystifies me. If the truth is there, examine it, try to figure it, look for a solution, but just don't go off spouting various random thoughts. One doesn't have to exaggerate the Truth. If it is there, it will stand on its own.

I checked out some reviews on amazon and Htichens got panned by a number of people. I'll have to go to the UK amazon as well. It's only 100 pages long I think!

I'm very surprised.

I emailed/submitted a comment to the discussion at the link and asked my question, which I feel pretty strongly about, but am not certain of ... this was in another discussion in another forum.

My sense is that sprituality is hard-wired, a part of evolution, ritual is a part of survival. Imagine a caveman trying to figure what the Hell life is all about, seeing rain fall, seeing winter come, seeing death, trying to find food, having to protect children. There might be a need to have some sort of "hope" to survive, as well as community-based uniting rituals. Religion does UNITE people as well as divide them.

I see nothing wrong with that. We have "rites of passage" that unite and mark milestones. Birth of a new child is celebrated. Birthdays are marked. Coming of age is celebrated. Death -- we must mourn for closure. There don't have to elaborate funerals, but we need these rituals to mark the end of someone's life.

A dance thanking the Rain Gods for the rain, or a prayer for a good season of crops ... same stuff. "Letting go" of a burden to a higher power so one can carry on with life.

And as I've debated on the Board many times, I feel life in the past and in the present is indeed about survival of the fitttest. And men in particular obviously are territorial, warlike, wiling to fight for property, spouse, children, genetic legacy.

The ownership of women and miserable treatment of women for instance most likely, IMHO, has more to do with a man guaranteeing sp? that HIS children will survive, his genetic heritage; he doesn't want a woman out of his sight for fear she will "mate" with another man. He keeps her hidden, in her home, in her clothing. She is kept from education, etc. Men "cannot control their sexual urges" so they must make women unattractive, and hidden, so they don't "fall to temptaion." Wasn't Eve the naughty one in the Garden of Eden? Hmmmmm....... A woman to blame! Always!

Of course times have changed, but instincts remain deeply imbedded. Many here don't agree with me, but there are anthropologistst, sociologists, neurologists, etc., etc., etc. who subscribe to these ideas. Even theologians bandy this about. And they have the courage to discuss these ideas though they are not popular.

Bottom line, we find evidence of religion and "spirituality" or "Gods" or "symbols" of the power of Nature *in every culture on Earth, ancient and modern.* Atheists, pure atheists, are pretty rare.

Also as noted in one review ... secular humanists are no more morally upright than individuals with some form of religion or faith and vice versa. Doesn't seem the man did his homework on that one.

But man, Pablo, your comment is truly sinister. Again, like Michael Moore, manipulating the truth, when all one has to do is SHOW the truth and discuss the truth.

I don't doubt Hitchen's "sincerity" ... I believe he's attacking ALL religion. If he's only attacking ISLAM, well that is ridiculous. Many Muslims stand up against Fundamentalist Islamics. Many women stand up for themselves in Islamic culture and hold positions of authority.

As in the day of women demanding respect and the right to vote here in the US, later, feminism (which in its fundamentalist form drives me into a rage -- I'm not a feminist), people speak up, at great risk.

*If you're theory is correct Pablo, this would mean Hitchens is both a liar and a coward, and again I ask, how could someone admire him?*
:shock:

Sigh.
Cheers,
D


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

To be honest I haven't read the guys book or know any more of him than what is written about him in that article but what I think is that these guys like Dawkins have been around for a long time with this view that religion is evil and devisive, it is hardly a new opinion or viewpoint, but also in the past the main religions that were causing problems were more or less open to criticism and intellectual debate so these guys knew that these religions couldnt really stand up to scientific enquiry so there was no real need to go out and push an atheist agenda. But the question is why are these guys popular now, why do these guys books sell well now and not before 9/11 and the European bombings? I expect these guys really dont like any religions but I suspect that it is Islamic fascism which really motivates them to be more aggressive in their views because it is not open to any sort of questioning or criticism at all which is completely at odds with these guys principles as academics.

If they came out and only attacked the Islam they would be declared racists and discredited publicly and professionally as well as most probably being murdered. I expect that these guys really do hate all religions but it is the curent climate where there is an ideology which declares that it is immune to any form of criticism which I suspect really gets these guys going. Im not trying to say that Hitchens is a Christian or Jew trying to attack Islam im just saying that I suspect that it is the modern brand of Islamic fanatics which has inspired and motivated him in becoming more vocal and public in his viewpoint.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*I can only respond that Atheism has a long history dating back centuries to early India, ancient Greece and Rome. If I printed out the entire article it would take 3 hours to read/study. I'm now prompted to get a book on the history of atheism. I have sworn I'm not going to buy another book this year damnit. LOL.*

Also a contradiction to the concept that 9/11 changed us to anti-Muslim, well, it put a focus on it, but what of the Christian Moral Majority that *increased* and helped Bush secure his election. *Their focus is on the decline of Western society to secularism, not necessarily against Muslim. If anything it would seem that religious faith in the US appeared to increase after 9/11 -- although I don't know the real statistics on that. I think more Fundamentalist Christians were drawn out, they were already there.*

But the West is not waging a war on religion, it is waging a war on Fundamentalist Muslims and more imporantly *TERRORISM*, and again, not all Muslims are Fundamentalists, and they do not agree with Fundamentalist actions.

That is a stupid thing to say (Bush coined it I guess) "war on terrorism" as terrorism isn't a specific country that can be attacked in a war. It is guerilla sp? warfare that we will always have to deal with.

Also, the US and Britain (Tony Blair) have been accused of trying to force DEMOCRACY on other countries. And missionaries to developing countries are forcing "Christianity" on certain populations. However weathy Muslim nations are teaching Fundamentalist Islam in African Nations as we speak and promote hatred of America and the West.

Historical events change the focus of sociological views, and magnify certain concerns, true, and the US and the world will never be the same after 9/11. However we were very much aware of troubles in the Middle East since the 1900s. We also grossly underestimated the integration of Mosque and State in the Muslim world.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

*Atheistic schools are found in Hinduism, which is otherwise a very theistic religion. The thoroughly materialistic and anti-religious philosophical Carvaka School that originated in India around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India.* This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as a heterodox system and is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[56]

......

*Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[59] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[60] and strongly criticized religion and mysticism.*

Atomists such as *Leucippus and Democritus explained the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Other pre-Socratic philosophers with atheistic views included Prodicus, Protagoras, and Theodorus.*

Another atomic materialist, Epicurus, disputed many religious doctrines, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity; he considered the soul purely material and mortal. *While Epicureanism did not rule out the existence of gods, he believed that if they did exist, they were unconcerned with humanity.[62]*

................

*One of the greatest Roman philosophers to affirm skeptical inquiry was Sextus Empiricus.[citation needed] He held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefs?a form of skepticism known as Pyrrhonism. He held the view that nothing was inherently evil, and that ataraxia ("peace of mind") is attainable by withholding one's judgment. His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.[64]*

*The Greek philosopher Socrates was called an atheist for impiety on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[65] Although he disputed the accusation that he was a "complete atheist",[66] he was ultimately sentenced to death.*

The meaning of "atheist" changed over the course of classical antiquity. The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods.[67] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and Emperor-worship in particular. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[68]

......... etc.
-------------------------------------------------------

Atheism has always existed. I think various sociological changes have made it easier for individuals to speak about it, as well as things like women's rights, abortion, homosexuality, etc. The Christian right have subsequently responded to these DOMESTIC concerns. They feel society has gone downhill the further we move towards secularism, hence the increase in their speaking out.

For instance, there have always been homosexuals, but AIDS and other factors brought those concerns to the forefront.

Nothing is simple. The complexity of this situation is unfathomable.
Some may believe we are fighting against Islam. I doubt many others do. But there is indeed racial profiling, just as there is racial profiling of blacks in this country, or sus "communists."

Cheers,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I am not a historian, and am bad with details, but this is the general stuff I've picked up over the years....

Briefly, as an example. In the 1900s the US was greatly preoccupied with the former Soviet Union. We were anti-COMMUNIST -- we feared Democratic nations would be threatened by the power of the Soviet Union and Communism. We didn't think twice of the threat of Fundamentalist Muslim terrorism. In the 1960s JFK and the stand-off with Cuba terrified us. That was the closest we have come to a nuclear war. Those who remember that time were ready for the end of the world.

WWII was focused on Hitler. There is always some miserable despot to worry about. At that time the Russians were our ALLIES and really fought the hardest in that war. We came in at the eleventh hour. That war brought the plight of the Jews to the forefront and the Israel was given land in 1948, which of course resulted in the endless mess now between Palestine and Israel.

Clinton balanced our budget, and that included reducing funds to the military for defense, not offence. We weren't worried about "the communists" as much. And how silly to think someone would bother us when communism was given such a blow. We did try to off various threatening Middle Eastern leaders who were a rising danger.

But were blindsided by a direct attack on 9/11. We weren't thinking ahead as is the usual case in life and politics. I don't know enough about it, or endlessly forget, but Al Quaida was not on our main list of concerns. I think we underestimated their power, and that of other Fundamentalist Islamic groups (NOT ALL MUSLIMS).

The era in which one is living places focus on particular issues. Other issues that *are already there* fall to the back burner of concerns. When I grew up, we had drills in school (as though this would make a difference) to hide under our desks in the event of a nuclear attack from the Soviets.

That was in the 1960s. "Fallout Shelters" in our schools were for tornadoes sp? and nuclear fallout. It was absolutely ridiculous, but the fear in those days was Communism and the former Soviet Union/East Berlin, etc. I have to laugh that there was most remote chance of being protected from a nuclear bomb by hiding under one's school desk, LOLOLOL.

We weren't discussing Al Quaeda in history class in school or uni.

The sad thing I see is history never really changes. So many have their own very distinct cultures which they wish to nurture and maintain. Again, this is nothing new.


----------

