Our Faith Talk is in the Gutter

Ant A,Kafir;

You say
"Income taxes of Saudi and expatriate employees working in the Kingdom were abolished in 1975. All Saudi citizens and all Saudi companies, however, must pay a religious tax -- zakat -- of 2.5% annually on profits and on the assessable amount for individuals". This is not true.Only natives pay 2.5%. Foreign Muslims pay 5% and Infidels pay 10%.Check out my post of Jan.26, 9:12 PM

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

You wrote concerning my post of 1-28-2008 at 11:59 AM, "And the Son and Holy Spirit were not present? You know three persons one god!!!", thank you for asking.

As I said God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000.

As it happened eight years ago today on 1-29-2000 the Holy Spirit came into my body and spoke not to me but thru me as in I had to actually open my mouth and speak to answer a question that was asked and the Holy Spirit also revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, this occurred at St Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md, this is in the USA in case anyone from another country doesn't know where Ocean City, Md is and happens to read this.

It doesn't matter if you or anyone else believes me or not, it is either true or not, in time you will know.

As I have said before and I repeat: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will just as surely get here, in God's Time.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

thats because it is not relevant to the discusson lib-
BTW- its J. smith, for joseph- not jay

and there was a fellow who couldnt find an actual rebuttal- so, instead- predictable simply posed new "questions"

and claimed them as original, but were a cut and paste from joseph smiths paper-

it seemed to make him quite mad for his "oiginal" thoughts to be exposed so he simply responds by calling me a liar with increasing ferocity.

will you please- AT THE VERY LEAST-

READ these simple links you post?

joseph- not jay.

WHAT IS TO CONFESS LIB?
IM THE ONE WHO LINKED THE ARTICLE!!!!!!

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

You failed to confess your use of Jay Smith's critique of the koran as being a reference for the credence of Islam.

The conclusions of said study:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran9tc.htm

"In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur'an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content.

As we have seen, the Qur'an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur'an's authenticity.

When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur'an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a "holy book" which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time.

It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur'an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur'an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur'an could hope to be the true Word of God. "

That looks a lot like:

Mohammed was an illiterate, lusting, greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

chris everett-
you said-
"Victoria says "[Hitchens] also commented that he 'loses respect' for any person when he discovers that they are believers."

I interpreted his remark as meaning that he loses a DEGREE of respect when he learns that someone is a believer, i.e. superstitious."

hello chris- i watched the videos and didnt get the impression there was any degree intended-

maybe there was a subtlety i missed- but there seemed to be no other way to interpret his contempt, as that is how he phrased it, and sally quinn asked him in the next video to elaborate on that contmept- which is where he made the 'lose respect for religious' comments-

i agree with you that mr shearer does speak in absolutes-

this is also my disenchantment with mr hitchens-

on january 26 at 9:15PM i defined what i consider to be the fundamentality- (fundamental mentality) of such people-

my dad was an atheist, and my mom was an agnostic- there were certainly many probing conversations around my home-

its also demeaning that atheists think they are outside of human experience, or some special group that is simply misunderstood by the rest of the world-

good manners will out, as my grandmother used to say-

i say bigotry is just as ugly out of a (believers or white or black or atheist or insert your own category here) 's mouth as anyone else-

i also take refuge on a freethinkers blog of ex-onfaith people who i met on sam harris's posts and became sickened by the lack of civility and respect-
did i mention they are mostly atheists?

they dont hold my beliefs against me, but can dialogue pretty happily about many issues without assuming my innate stupidity-

not every believer is an ignorant, intolerant sheeple- some of us have long circuitous and varied paths that led us to where we are complete with depth of questioning and some reason.

bad manners, name-calling- and, well...expressions of contempt for any group of people as a whole are pretty unpalatable to me personally.

yours for rhyme,time, and reason.
victoria

Thomas "Moses" Baum,

An exactly how much sleep did you have the night before this awesome visit? And the Son and Holy Spirit were not present? You know three persons one god!!!

Or was it those hallucinogens you were on to kill the pain????

Thomas Baum:

Just thought that I would say Hi to whoever is interested and also to the disinterested.

It was 8 years ago today that God the Father came into my heart and did not say a word, didn't have to.

That was on a Friday and today is a Monday but it was the 28th of January.

While we are all bickering back and forth about whether God is Real or not guess what, in due time all will know.

So many people seem to think that it isn't important what you do and how you treat each other but only if you know God's Name, that is patently absurd.

IF God created us and wanted us to hate each other and treat each other with contempt because we don't believe in Him then He wouldn't be worthy of respect even if he was god.

Also if God was such an egomaniac that knowing His Name was more important that how we treated each other than he should be avoided at all costs.

IF God created us and gave us free will and didn't have a plan for everyone to be in His Kingdom eventually, considering that God by definition knows everything, including whether we would ever take personal responsibility for our actions during our lifetime, then He would be most cruel and heartless.

This is not to say that we aren't responsible for our actions, quite the contrary, whether we believe in God or not we are responsible, but do we accept that now or will we accept it later.

IF God does have a plan that is for all of His Creation to be with Him and He does, doesn't it seem sad that so many of the people that profess to believe in Him cannot even fathom that God could be so forgiving and compassionate even to the point that they seem to say, even shout, THAT'S NOT FAIR, well maybe God isn't fair but is a Being of Pure Love and just doesn't meet their expectations of revenge.

Vengeance and revenge are two completely different words and their meanings are very, very different.

In other words when God said, "MY Ways are not your ways and MY Thoughts are not your thoughts", well something to think about, is it not?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

nicE onE dreW.

Mr Mark;

Your comment to victoria; (excuse the small case)

"By definition, my experience will be different than that of someone sitting outside said bubble."

Better, is 'different from.'

From Strunk and White;

"Re.Different than. Logic supports established usage; one thing differs from another,hence, different 'from'. Or,other than,unlike".

Thought you might find that helpful.

TO PETER:

You wrote, "Religion is a choice. Race and ethnicity are not. That's why it is acceptable to say what he said."

Is it because someone makes a choice that someone else doesn't approve of reason for contempt?

Doesn't it make more sense to look at the person and who they are rather than what they call themselves be it atheist[believing in nothing greater than ourselves], agnostics[believing that there may or may not be something greater than ourselves] or theists[believing in something greater than ourselves].

I would like to ask a question, on these posts sometimes the term "free thinker" appears, does it ever appear to anyone else that sometimes it seems that unless someone thinks exactly like all the other "free thinkers" than you cannot be a "free thinker"?

Some people have experiences that others don't, we can believe or not believe them but just to belittle them, does that make someone bigger?

I guess someone could say I made a choice to have faith but personally I believe it was a gift and I accepted it.

I thank God for that gift and I also thank God that God is not even close to being like what so many people think of Him especially some that know His Name.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"What if Hitchens had proudly stated his contempt for black people, or said that he immediately loses respect for people once he finds out they are Mexican?"

Religion is a choice. Race and ethnicity are not. That's why it is acceptable to say what he said.

Mr. Patel

Please don't interpret the following comments as a equivalent to a digestive juice, or "bile," as you call it. Bile is, by the way, an essential component of digestion, as emphatic comment is an essential component of constructive dialogue. My digestion is fine and my respect for your point of view is complete and unqualified, as is my respect for any peacefully expressed point of view.

However, the forum of a daily newspaper assumes for most of us an allegiance to reasonableness and precision, even in the promotion of a cause - something that you and your publisher, Mr. Meacham, are engaged in. Please consider:

1. Conflating sloppy Wikipedia's sloppy definition of an even sloppier term, "hate speech," with comments that reflect a disappointment with the influence of religions on the world's affairs is dishonest and intellectually lazy. Those who share your opinion of Mr. Hitchen's writings should express their views emphatically, but raising the specter of "hate speech" is straw-dogging.

2. Comparing the category "Mexican" with the categories into which religious people are put and suggesting a facile substitution of terms, then asking in effect, "How would you feel," is again intellectually lazy. Almost as lazy as the construction of the previous sentence! One cannot choose one's country of origin. One's religious allegiance is, on the other hand, ultimately a matter of choice, regardless of how much weight one's native culture carries.

The brittleness of the various faith communities is telling. Its members preach and teach and prescribe as easily as they breathe. Experiencing criticism is, apparently, suffocating. What you are equating with "hate speech" is the kind of criticism people of faith have directed at atheists nearly forever. We've had to develop stout spines. Your fellow faith-ists might consider pursuing a similar fitness.

Sincerely

Philip Scruton

Just thought that I would say Hi to whoever is interested and also to the disinterested.

It was 8 years ago today that God the Father came into my heart and did not say a word, didn't have to.

That was on a Friday and today is a Monday but it was the 28th of January.

While we are all bickering back and forth about whether God is Real or not guess what, in due time all will know.

So many people seem to think that it isn't important what you do and how you treat each other but only if you know God's Name, that is patently absurd.

IF God created us and wanted us to hate each other and treat each other with contempt because we don't believe in Him then He wouldn't be worthy of respect even if he was god.

Also if God was such an egomaniac that knowing His Name was more important that how we treated each other than he should be avoided at all costs.

IF God created us and gave us free will and didn't have a plan for everyone to be in His Kingdom eventually, considering that God by definition knows everything, including whether we would ever take personal responsibility for our actions during our lifetime, then He would be most cruel and heartless.

This is not to say that we aren't responsible for our actions, quite the contrary, whether we believe in God or not we are responsible, but do we accept that now or will we accept it later.

IF God does have a plan that is for all of His Creation to be with Him and He does, doesn't it seem sad that so many of the people that profess to believe in Him cannot even fathom that God could be so forgiving and compassionate even to the point that they seem to say, even shout, THAT'S NOT FAIR, well maybe God isn't fair but is a Being of Pure Love and just doesn't meet their expectations of revenge.

Vengeance and revenge are two completely different words and their meanings are very, very different.

In other words when God said, "MY Ways are not your ways and MY Thoughts are not your thoughts", well something to think about, is it not?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Victoria,

I can't resist. You write "i thnk deep down, and i could be wrong- that atheists are [m]ost afraid of being considered stupid- but they dont realize- that its only other atheists that make that judgement."

Have you read the posts of Canyon Shearer and Spiderman2, among others?! Wouldn't you have to agree that these posters are the MOST INSULTING people on the blog? Wouldn't you also have to agree that they appear to be the most self-identified Christians on the blog? So from where do you get your conclusions?

Dear Victoria -

Thanks for your comments. A few of my own:

"o for the record- hes (Hitchens) calling himself an atheist these days."

Actually, he's calling himself an "anti-theist," a label I've appropriated to describe myself.

"so, it seems to have really hit a nerve with you mr mark-"

No, not really. You may be reacting to the fact that I responded to one of your posts for a change. The fact is that I don't read many of your posts because I don't like wading through posts that ignore the standard rules of punctuation. I find such posts difficult to scan and too much work to read. Your posts aren't the only ones that suffer from a laissez-faire attitude towards effective communication, so don't feel that I'm singling you out. I don't bother reading Drew and JJ's posts for the same reason.

This may be trite on my part, but it's just how I feel. With all the posts there warrant a read on this site, I tend to spend my energy on the ones that are presented without impediments to their being read and considered.

"so- he lacks humility, but mostly is derivative of greater minds that have said it before him, and in a more interesting and compelling way"

I always get a kick out of the religious folk as they cling to philosophies and teachings that haven't had anything new to say for a couple of thousand years while chastising atheists for advancing arguments that have "said it before."

"i am tickled that you think im a christian though-"

I don't really know to what religion you subscribe. As I mentioned above, I seldom read your posts due to the reasons I outlined. Care to enlighten me?

"what i get from the writings of the atheists is a sense of disconnection to the universe, alienation from each other- "

I feel the opposite, and in great measure. But then, I'm inside the atheist/scientific/logical/rational bubble. By definition, my experience will be different than that of someone sitting outside said bubble.

"i thnk deep down, and i could be wrong- that atheists are ost afraid of being considered stupid- but they dont realize- that its only other atheists that make that judgement-"

Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head - deep down, you are wrong.

Thanks for the chat.

Jihadist: "So, do you, or do you not think that Hitchens in stating he is "anti-theist" is, not being bigoted?"

No, I don’t think he’s being bigoted. Provocative, yes, but that’s because of the culture we live in that accepts belief in invisible supernatural beings and events as the status quo.

Unbelievable!!!

Here we have Muslims like Eboo, Jist (the former Jihadist) and Victoria criticizing atheism and anything else non-Muslim when they cannot even come to grips with the flaws of their own severely flawed religion. Even the most glaring flaw, the tenet of Islam that requires belief in "pretty thingies" is shoved aside with comments like "I don't have time to think about such things" or "Islam is perfect". And Victoria in her rush to defend Islam in a previous thread actually quoted as "koranic pure", an anti-koran study by one Jay Smith but yet she returns like she is the ultimate Islamic guru.

This video of a debate between Dr. Hitchins and Dinesh Dsuza could clarify some the points argued in this thread.
http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_debate/dsouza_hitchens_debate_complete.wmv

Nice one there Eboo. Hitchens must have missed all the black people who go around murdering justifying it by the color of their skin, or all the people from south of the border who go around stealing money from people because their Mexicanness requires them to.

I also enjoy how you pick one anecdote to show that it is the minority that is doing the persecuting (a minority that study after study has shown is the least trusted, and Presidents have said are not patriots, and should not be americans. Yes, those vile persecutors!)! And I also like how the standard for persecution is raised to "losing respect for someone" as opposed to "forcefully castrating women" which barely registers as persecution for you if muslims do it.

Really Nice...

Since we're all pulling bait-and-switches, here's mine, the Mother of All Bait-and-Switches:

Jihadist says "So, do you, or do you not think that Hitchens in stating he is "anti-theist" is, not being bigoted?"

What if Hitchens were to have said he was anti-Nazi? Would THAT have been bigoted? Of course, the knee jerk response would be to say that there's no comparison. I mean, the Nazis under Hitler were willing to wipe out entire groups of people in pursuit of their twisted utopian fantasy of racial and ideological purity. How can that be compared to, say, Islam under Mohammed or Judaism under Moses (well, under the Moses story anyway)? It apparently can't.

Victoria says "[Hitchens] also commented that he 'loses respect' for any person when he discovers that they are believers."

I interpreted his remark as meaning that he loses a DEGREE of respect when he learns that someone is a believer, i.e. superstitious. Frankly, I do to. Why? Because I respect the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to accept that we live in a world of mystery and unknown phenomena. So, all else equal, a non-religious person EARNS a level of respect that a religious person doesn't. Of course, it's only right and proper to give someone a FULL MEASURE of respect upon meeting them. As one gets to know them, in some ways they will live up to that full measure, and in other ways they won't. I'm sure that in many ways I don't live up to a full measure myself.

"But if you replace a racial or ethnic category for the religious category in their comments, if quickly becomes clear how insulting their work in this area is."

Eboo Patel, this is, excuse me, pretty disingenuous. If I said: "If you would kill somebody, you certainly would be a bad person", deriving from this statement that you are a bad person, it would amount to the same degree of logical nonsense.

Racial or ethnic categories are something else than religious beliefs. And, logic being a divine present, it seems to have been distributed in different quantities to different people.

If I meet a stamp collector and tell him that I don't collect stamps, I don't think it can be regarded as an insult, not even by you.

Victoria,

talking about generalizations:

"what i get from the writings of the atheists is a sense of disconnection to the universe, alienation from each other".

It is really hilarious how someone like you claims to know what I, for instance, an atheist, thinks, feels, hopes, suffers, loves, connects...

Pure religious arrogance and conceit: "I am better than you, as a matter of fact, better than the whole "group" (?) of atheists."

Victoria, I am afraid you will have to develop at least as much as you hope atheists will.

Jihadist,

I should have added the following to the last post.

Since "Bigot" is being used as a pejorative please clarify whether you are implying that Hitchens is irrational and or being obstinate in face of proven false facts. It would be helpful to understand exactly what is being said if you did clarify exactly what you mean when you call Hitchens a bigot. As it is I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. If you are using the term as a rhetorical ploy, then to what end?

hi mr mark- chris elliot-it isnt his vocabulary i am remarking on- it is his tone.

as i said before- his sweeping generalization and contempt for all religious people (his words) is an overreaching and, to me- small expression-

to express contempt for a people- cannot really be described as a noble thought, or one i would care to emulate.

hes missing out on a whole range of humans-
well, his loss, his choice.

but commendable- it is not.

worthy of praise- no- not to me.

he also commented that he 'loses respect' for any person when he discovers that they are believers.

well, that means he had to have had some respect for them to lose, and it also means his criteria for guaging human value (what is worthy of respect) and ability to discern that value in people, somewhat limited.

and his rejection of their worthiness (in his eyes) by such a biased and absolute reaction doesnt indicate to me any wide mindedness- but a narrow mindedness.

also, not exactly a characteristic i look for in a thinker.

i was also amused when he said that he had been exposed to 2 different christian traditons, and then siad , "so you see, ive had a wide experience" i am paraphrasing, as im not going to go and watch the entire videos again to find it- but that is the gist.

yes, if youre a 9 year old white boy in england, i guess that IS a wide experience, however- its not much of an experience from which to launch a critique of all faith.

ive read his posts onfaith here studiously.
and whatever links pop up-

o for the record- hes calling himself an atheist these days.

so, it seems to have really hit a nerve with you mr mark-

so- he lacks humility, but mostly is derivative of greater minds that have said it before him, and in a more interesting and compelling way- thats all-
you can be enamored to your hearts content-

i am tickled that you think im a christian though-

hes alos guilty of a trend ive noticed here from atheist commentors-
that people of faith switch off their thinking, or even more silly- hve never entertained atheistic ideas.

the assumption that all faithful are little groupthink clones that have never ever- never ever ever-- (perish the thought! yes! self-deprecatory pun intended!!)
contemplated anything outside of their own "supernatural bubble"

well, it does reek of a bit of arrogance-

while chris everett pretty fully described a system that is basically religion without the god-
substitute humility, or a sense of our own unimportance- our own sameness and lack of specialness in the grand scheme of things to that list-

it is this homogeneous seeing ourselves in others- and realizing our own interdependence- interconnectedness-
how when one member of the human family as the metaphorical hand is lopped off- the entire hand becomes lessened, pained and debilitated.

what i get from the writings of the atheists is a sense of disconnection to the universe, alienation from each other- and thats great- you have to go through that to get to the unity- but you dont stop and stagnate there- you keep going-

i thnk deep down, and i could be wrong- that atheists are ost afraid of being considered stupid- but they dont realize- that its only other atheists that make that judgement-

and theres plenty of bright stars in the world of the faithful-

o and JERRY- i often, but not always (it is very tedious to do so) make the disclaimer that i reserve the right to make an ad hominem at anonymous posters who throw silly names at me-

and i continue to reserve that right-

so, heres a hillary style CACKLE to rebut your chris matthews HA.

chris is kind of in a glass house throwing stones with that one, isnt he?
but he pitches a good game, im not going to get down on mr matthews.

really you guys, as far as incisive critique goes,
stupidity?
is that all youve got?

be deep be deep be deep thats all folks!

Jihadist,

Exactly what do you find about Hitchens assertion about anti-theist as bigotry? Is his claim of being an anti-theist by itself and of itself bigotry for you?

Hello E Favorite,

So, do you, or do you not think that Hitchens in stating he is "anti-theist" is, not being bigoted?

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Jimbo,

Is "icy logic" and reason over-rated? Why are not more Americans atheists, like Europeans?

Hi, Jihadist – I haven’t noticed any atheists being shocked at being vilified by believers. We’re quite used to be vilified for not believing in invisible supernatural gods. We may think it’s silly, but certainly not shocking.

Also, my “harsh criticism” remark referred to forum contributors’ comments to Eboo. I neither made nor intended any reference to Harris and Hitchens. And yes, I have found that believers who receive harsh criticism about their religion that they can’t address logically, often counter with the statement that the discussion has strengthened their faith. Do you ever find your faith strengthen by the discussions here?

Regarding your repetitious use of “Caucasian male” I’m not sure I get your point. Several of the popular writers are white guys, but atheists I know represent both genders and numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds. Many of them, including me, were non-believers before ever hearing of Hitchens, Harris and the rest of the white guys.

Jihadist;

you;

"By the way, comparing God to Zeus and Thor, humans with supernatural or extra abilities like Spider-Man or the Incredible Hulk, is absurb."

me;

As I recall...not that I'm old enough to remember...Zeus was God of Rome before Jesus's God came to the throne. I believe that there may be those on Starhawk's thread that still believe in Zeus,today. He's just as real as all the other gods. Surreal .

Jihadist;

Thanks for your reply.

Chris Everett has a post just a scroll away that quotes Sam Harris;which suggests that I'm not the only one blown away by Harris's lucid and powerful prose and imagery,as well as his icy logic and justified concerns about the dangerous future that may await us.

All atheists I know,and all reviewers I've read think the guy's amazing, and so do I.

It would figure though,that you would not like or admire him.

E.Ponsonby - Smallpiece,

Pardon me. I missed yours.

I want Agnostic, if he comes back here, to clarify for me on that.

I was repeating what my Indian Hindu friends (of the Brahmin caste incidentally) who tells me that - caste and suttee etc are traditions and not belief.

As you know, Hinduism is rich and complex in belief and philosophy.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Hello Jimbo,

Religion may destroy us all? This is, a wee of an over-statement I would expect from Harris or Hitchens as logical and rational fellows.

Come now, I don't dislike Harris or Hitchens because I believe in God and they don't. I don't dislike Jacoby or Berlinerblau or Dawkins or Dennett or Russsell.

Harris and Hitchens are generalists and summarizers who wrote what many doubters and atheists already have rattling in their minds on God and religion.

Harris and Hitchens are, if you'd pardon the expression, Godsend for atheists in saying what they think and felt, judging by the many times they are quoted by atheists who adulated them.

As you know, there are atheists who would not rate Harris and Hitchens as rigorous thinkers, but nice stylists who provide very quotable soundbites among atheist thinker-writers.

By the way, comparing God to Zeus and Thor, humans with supernatural or extra abilities like Spider-Man or the Incredible Hulk, is absurb.

I like complexity and depth. I don't like simple and obvious. Too easy, too bland and too unchallenging. God and faith is both obvious and not at all.

------------------------------------------------

E Favorite,

I do think Eboo Patel is quite correct in comparing some criticisms of religion to racism. What Harris and Hitchens said in some of their statements is technically bigotry, now matter how one "whitewash" them.

So, you do think such "harsh criticisms" from Harris and Hitchens of our beliefs will only make our faith stronger? And you've seen that reaction quite a lot among religious people?

But you do know adulators and fans of Hitchens and Harris do take what they said as cues, and to take them even further. That is how bigotry becomes an infectious virus.

Muslims are aware of Mr. Harris' and Mr. Hitchens' extra "attention" on Islam and Muslims. But, of course, we do understand and emphatise that they are two male Caucasians from perhaps stifling and conforming middle/upper middle class homes in the UK and US.

We also understand while Mr. Harris and Mr. Hitchens wants us to reject our superstitious beliefs, there are other male Caucasian evangelicals who want us to reject our faith and accept theirs as the one true one to save us and seek salvation through. Of course there are other male Caucasians who wants us to edit and delete the Qur'an.

So many male Caucasians telling us what to do and what to think. Racist and sexist enough for you?

Now, look at the Mr. Eboo Patel. He is not Caucasian, he is not a Christian in the United States. Perhaps may wish to consider Mr. Eboo Patel is not really threatened by atheists expressing their views, but that two males Caucasians making statements telling us it is all right to demean and dehumanise him for his beliefs.

Playing the race or religion card is an accusation made by those who has never experienced discrimination due to their race or gender or belief.

Judging by some posts from atheists in On Faith, some seem shocked that they are "persecuted" or "hated" or "vilified" for their non-belief.

Welcome to the club.

--------------------------------------------------

Mr. Mark,

Yes of course "our faith talk is in the gutter." as Mr. Eboo Patel stated.

Perhaps Mr. Harris and Mr. Hitchens (male Caucasians) don't see race as an issue, which is more so for some than religion.

I can be an African American atheist and still experience racism from some Caucasian atheists. Whoever said there are atheists are not racist and sexist?

As for Hitchens' intro to his latest book, "The Portable Atheist", how will that really change one's life reading it?

Change in thinking is not the same as change in attitude, personality, temperament etc. Or even one's personal life and career, and, alas, fate.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello God bless Hitchens and Harris,

Hitchens was making "bigoted" statements. I see that him asserting that he is "anti-theist" is softened by his apologists as not a "hate speech."

I am a Muslim. I recognise hate speech, bigoted speech from everyone from Osama to the Iranian president to Pat Robertson to Ann Coulter to Daniel Pipes in all its nuances and layerings.

No one is saying all atheists are hateful and judgmental of those of faith, we are only saying Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Harris is.

And no one is asking atheists to shut up, only to pause and be objective that some among them are capable or racist, sexist and bigoted remarks.

-------------------------------------------------

Hello Matthew,

Hitchens did not come across as mean spirited?

Oh yes, so is Pol Pot and Suharto (former President of Indonesia who died over weekened) if one meet them personally.

If Hitchens come comes across as "surprised and disgusted" that people can't see the obvious, then he is truly out of touch with the mass of humanity on most things including faith.

So, I now breathlessly await for an edition of, "Atheism for Idiots".

Thanks and regards

"J"

Eboo

"If you insult religion, you are nominated for a National Book Award (as Christopher Hitchens was)."

Is discouraging the application of classical mechanics to atomic-level phenomenon insulting to 19th century physicists? Of course not. So please tell us why discouraging the worship of no-see-ums is to be considered insulting.

Oh, I should also mention that Ethical Culture was founded in sweet, sweet America, which I think may qualify it as POST-APOCALYPTIC.

Take that, Mitt Romney!

Ya ya!!!

Carol:

My point is, the more improbable ("miraculous") and eerie stories you tell people, the more they are eager to believe them - children and those who want to remain children in order to go to heaven ("unless you will become like children...").

But since it was me who invented the stories, I was in no danger to believe them. Seeing how the mechanism worked enlightened and "saved" me. End of my otherwise religious superstition.

Victoria,

You write "while theyre busy jettisoning the societal influence and structure of religious paradigms, they seem to have forgotten that nature, and society- abhor a vacuum. surely theyve considered that if they expel religion, some opportunistic structure will take its place."

I think your concern is misplaced. What Hitchens, Harris et al strive for is not the expulsion of any particular religion - they strive for an end to supernaturalism itself. If this vision were to be realized, the supernaturalist religions that would fall away would not be replaced by other supernaturalist religions. Instead, if they were replaced by anything, they would be replaced by metaphysically legitimate institutions that provided whatever combination of community, spirituality, etc, that people found valuable. The "opportunism" you fear would be mitigated by the skepticism of a reasonable populace, as opposed to the historical situation of a credulous populace being hoodwinked by stories of eternal punishment or reward, depending on the quality of their supplication and the quantity of their tithe.

I'm also surprised that you take the authors to task in the first place. Harris in particular puts considerable effort towards fleshing out the elements of what he considers to be a reasonable spiritual practice, explicitly quoting (random!) Buddhist literature as an example of a reasonable approach. He concludes "The End of Faith" thus:

"This universe is shot through with mystery. The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name. The consciousness that animates us is itself central to this mystery and the ground for any experience we might wish to call 'spiritual.' No myths need be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance. No personal God need be worshipped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation. No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do, in fact, love our neighbors, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish. The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered. Whether the days our civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this."

This doesn't sound like a gratuitous "tearing down" to me! It is a cautionary tale - a tale of existing blindness and folly; a warning that the world can no longer afford the luxury of religious delusion (not that it ever could); and a finger pointing the way (one way, anyway) towards a life felt deeply, but honestly, too. And it's NOT hate speech.

Finally, I would like to point out that even now, the vacuum you speak of doesn't really exist. There are secular and quasi-secular institutions all over the world that are dedicated to spiritual betterment. Among the more popular are Unitarian Universalism (still too religious for me) and reform Judaism (same, and I'm not Jewish). These organizations typically don't require (or expect) any supernatural beliefs, although they do rely on their respective religious traditions for guidance and insight. Personally, I'm a member of Ethical Culture, a "religion" founded in the 1800's and describing itself thus:

"Ethical Culture is a humanist and ethical movement inspired by the ideal that the supreme aim of our lives is to create a more humane society. We stand for separation of church and state. We believe acting morally does not require belief in a god. We place our faith in the demonstrated capacity of people to do wonderful things. We believe in the worth and dignity of all living beings."

So you see, there is a world out there, a world without gods or other ancient tribal superstitions, and it's not the world as it's typically represented by the religious - amoral, degenerate, adrift and in despair and denial. It is a world of dignity, fellowship, stewardship, curiosity, intelligence and progress. It's a world where effort in this world is put towards the betterment of life IN THIS WORLD.

Eboo Patel says *If you insult religion,you are nominated for a National Book Award*

*They do blaspheme who say God is Christ* 5.72
*They surely disbelieve who say God is the third of three(Trinity)* 5.73

How can we interpret these verses ? insult or not ?

Hear, hear! Thank you for your essay.

Gerry:

I fail to see the link between your scary stories and religion.

If the mothers of my children's friends didn't want them watching horror movies while staying at my house, I don't know that it would affect my views on God, particulaly....

Dear God Bless Hitchens and Harris:

Shouldn't that be-

G_d Bless Hitchens and Harris? Don't these two Atheists also say they are Jewish?

If there was a god, I'm absolutely sure he'd appreciate the work of Hitchens in Harris.

The idea that Hitchens engages in hate speech is ludicrous. He doesn't say the religious should lose their rights or be hurt or be second-class citizens. He doesn't think ordinances should be passed to keep religious people out of places or shouldn't vote or be allowed to marry non-religious.

Mr. Patel, you simply aren't playing fair. You want us to believe that atheists are hateful and judgmental in a way those of faith are not, and it's simply not true.

I hope you realize this and stop whipping up fair of atheists or trying to shut them up.

Thanks.

victoria,jihadist et al.

Hitchins doesn't come across to me as mean spirited.

He comes across as surprised and disgusted that people can't see the obvious...that God is an invention of the human mind.
People believe because everybody around them seems to believe. Religion is ludicrous nonsense.
If you were to realize that,you would begin to see Hitchins,Harris,Dawkins and Dennett,and Grayling,and Pinker,and Sagan and Ridley and many others,are Heroes,trying to get across to us the idiocy of religion.

Dear Victoria -

Perhaps Mr Hitchens is enthralled by his intellect. I'm enthralled by his intellect. Care to comment on that?

I don't believe that Mr Hitchens was "intelligent by birth" while others aren't so lucky. I really wish you Xians could find it within yourselves to abandon the, "I may be stupid, but I know what's true because god said so," position. It's unseemly. Railing against people because they have spent the time and energy to increase their knowledge set displays a defensiveness born of fear. Please stop with the victimhood.

Perhaps Hitchens had a better aptitude for learning, but it is his education that comes through his writings and his debates. That's to be expected of a person who was Oxford-educated and who has spent his life as a well-traveled author and journalist.

My point about my relatives living in the middle of the country and the French is that people are who they are not by birth, but by the effects of their life journey. My relatives speak in rube English because they live among people who speak that way. In fact, one of my brothers speaks that way. We both went through the same public schools and had the same teachers, but I moved away from the area long ago while he stayed put and went into a quasi-factory career. None of my other siblings abuse the language the way he does. It's obvious he's the product of his environment.

Same with the French. They speak French because they're French.

Mr Hitchens writes and speaks the way he does because he can and because he's the product of his life journey. There is no ulterior motive involved in his use of the language, except the desire to utilize a wide vocabulary to add degrees of specificity to his arguments. Your assigning a motive of being enthralled with his own intellect to Hitchens says nothing about him and a lot about you. The reverse side of that coin would be to say that ignorant people are enthralled of their own ignorance (though they'd call it something else as the word "enthralled" wouldn't be in their vocabulary).

Are we to demand that Hitchens (or anyone else) dumb down his command of English so people like you won't jump to unfounded conclusions? Perhaps we can start at On Faith by requiring that everybody posting here lower themselves to composing posts on the level of Spiderman2 and the other knuckle draggers who couldn't compose a cogent sentence if their life depended on it. Oh wait - you'd then accuse Hitchens and his ilk of pandering.

Personally, I welcome the Hitchens of the world. I learn from them. The world is over populated with illiterate dolts. We could use more people with the erudition of (and the ability to make their case as does) Christopher Hitchens. The fact that you reject Hitchens on the basis you've outlined in your posts displays a defensiveness on your part that is as unwarranted as it is (sadly) to be expected.

Oscar Wilde said that art shouldn't aspire to become popular, but that the populace should aspire to become artistic. I think the same applies to writers like Hitchens and our relationship to them as readers, and while I might disagree vehemently with his stand on the latest Iraq war or any number of other issues, that doesn't mean I doubt his intellect or his ability to elucidate his position on any issue, agreed with by me or not.

In closing, I would ask you the following: what books and articles by Hitchens have you actually read? Upon what are you basing your wholesale condemnation of his writings and his perspective?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Dane.

You; "Believers seem pathologically unable to even consider the idea that perhaps there is no God.
Where atheists have considered it, and rejected it".

Me; Right on.Most cant believe it for a minute if one suggests that there is no celestial teddy bear in the sky. To let go of such an idea seems life threatening to believers.
How positively bizarre.

When I was a boy of about 12 years I enjoyed inventing fantastic stories. Once I fantasized about ghosts, witches, spirits and demons, dogs with wings flying into in the attic of an 8 year old boy. The following day this boy’s father came to my father bitterly complaining about me telling such dangerous nonsense. The boy could not sleep any more, was completely horrified, off balance, cried etc. I got a severe punishment by my father, and I stopped telling younger boys demon stories, although I thought my stories were quite good.

That was the moment I became an atheist, and the end of my religious education.

Charles Fabri - In addition to commenting on the “garbage” you’ve seen here from atheists on this forum, could you give some examples of the higher level of conversation you’ve experienced with some of your atheist friends?

It could be helpful for well-meaning atheists to know the perceptions of a religious person who has given this some thought. I for one promise not to criticize your comments. I just want to hear what they are.

I hope you come back to read and respond to this.

Thanks

A. Kafir writes:

"I have no interest in maligning Muslims or muslim countries. I am talking about the ideology of Islam. I am talking about the hate that the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad teaches for the kafirs. Of course everyone has their problems. But many muslims go into denial that a lot of their problems originate from their Ideology of Islam. Iran cut off the hands of about 20 young men a few weeks ago because that punishment is part of the Quran. Iran and Saudi Arabia stones young women to death every now and then. That is savagery. And humans around the world have a right to say that is savagery, and saying that it is part of their religion, Islam, is not a good enough excuse. What is wrong in saying that Allah is a savage for ordaining such savage punishments for his creations?"

Well said!

Anonymous:
You tell Kafir
“the fact remains that you shifted your argument to conversion and citizenship and failed to agree that there is Jizia in any (Muslim) country today.”

Jizia today is embedded in the taxes of two countries that I know about; S.Arabia and some parts of India. In the former it is camouflaged as a “religious tax” and in the latter as “customs duty” as described below.

“The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country (Infidel) 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country (foreign Muslim) 5 per cent, and from a Muslim (native) 2.5 per cent.”

“ In India Zakat is levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.”
(Excerpts from my post of Jan.26 at 9:12 PM.

"but slurs on ones intelligence - really doesnt substitute as a rebuttal."

This is the Victoria who is known by "on faith" readers as the Muslim who caps IDIOT, MORON, PIKEY in response to ANY question of her belief system..

Hey Jacob -maybe "it was just a peripheral memory - something that demolishes and starts with a b-" or maybe its someone who likes to twist the truth into a pretzel.

HA! (read a "chris matthews" one note staccato laugh)

Since when is demanding proof of extraordinary claims uncivil? Yet that is what you are declaring.

If you want to know what it is like to be persecuted try simply standing up for your rights under the US Constitution as did high school student Matthew LaClair and then get back to us about the role atheists play in your supposed gutter talk.

Thank you, Mr. Patel. I feel the exact same way. Attacks on someone's spiritual and religious beliefs have gone out of hand and well below the intellectual belt. I rarely read "On Faith" because of its poor level of dialog, and I will continue not reading this column for that same reason. I am a practicing Catholic and I have atheist friends who have a much higher level of conversation than some of the garbage I see in "On Faith." This will probably be buried where no one will see this, but I just wanted to get this out.

were all just trying to walk in anothers shoes here pam-

acceptance of others beliefs, and mostly respect for people.

sorry you feel that way about faithful types-

i think many atheists balk at being so narrowly categorized- there seems to be quite a range of what atheism itself is-

about as many definitions as people-

i think i described fundamentality before- but ill elaborate-

stubbornly pushing ones beliefs (or beliefs ABOUT beliefs) onto others, with an exclusive and superior demeanor.

o- here it is from before-
"the fundamentality (my own made up word) that pervades any ideology- seems marked by a certain arrogant superiority- with a competitve streak which precludes inclusion and acceptance of others who are different.

intolerant and judgemental behavior can be found across the spectrum"

jacob- i wasnt deliberately trying to twist anything- it was just a peripheral memory - something that demolishes and starts with a b-

sorry i didnt go back and read and see it was bulldoze and not blow up-
i guess the word bulldoze elicited an emotional overeaction still, whats with this change in you lately?
youve been uncharacteristically aggressive lately-

mr mark- i still think mr hitchens is enthralled with his own intellect-

it is no accident that you reinterpreted it as pretensiousness-

but i didnt say that- the other unkind comparison of my own (self-admittedly)dismal intelligence is beneath you-

i guess intelligence is another one of those accidents of birth that we cant help.

but even those of us with low intelligence can recognize mean-spiritedness- no matter how cleverly expressed-

so its the meanspiritedness of the expression of mr hitchens that i find disturbing too-

to view any person with contempt for how they think or feel-

even if one has every possible intellectual superority and reason to do so-

its just small.

i would be much more amenable to mr hitchens writngs if you temepered your response with some example of his kindness-

but slurs on ones intelligence - really doesnt substitute as a rebuttal.

The religious are outraged, even horrified when someone comes along and says "I see no God". I guess it's because the most dangerous threat to religion are folks who interrupt the comfortable groupthink, and say it's all nonsense, because from the outside looking in, that's how it looks. Totally absurd.

Believers seem pathologically unable to even consider the idea that perhaps there is no God.
Where atheists have considered it, and rejected it.

Jihadist.

My comment below was directed to you.
regards

Did your Hindu friends tell you that the belief part of the caste system is the part that says if you are good and humble in your low caste position, you will be promoted to a higher caste when reincarnated, your family too?

It's all the poor Indian has to look forward to. The next life. It makes no sense, but that's religion; cruel, crippling, irrational religion.

Jihadist writes:
"Moi : Yes. And nature abhors a vacuum. So does man. Or else we won't have Mr. Harris supplementing his non-belief with Zen Buddhism for personal spiritualism or meditation.

If you remember in the sixties and seventies, Americans who jettisioned their former faiths replace them with another, from Hare Krishna to New Age this and that."

I can't speak for Mr. Harris, nor do I know enough about Zen Buddhism to comment on that (my sense of it is that it's not involved with the supernatural), but I have been an atheist for most of my life, and I haven't replaced religion with anything else. I just accept the natural world as it is.

I would hate to believe that there are people who can't reason, but must always be magical thinkers of one kind or another. It may be so, but if it is, it's a sad thing. I would rather think that if people are given enough information, and are taught the principles of critical thinking, that they can rise above the nonsense.

For Anonymous and Dhimmi Ajit:

http://impact.users.netlink.co.uk/namir/intro2.doc
**************************

In Iran the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrism are recognised as accepted religious minorities with limited rights. Business premises belonging to these minorities must bear the sign of their religion, and they must pay a special tax, called Jazieh, for the pleasure of living in an Islamic country. The followers of any other religions, not mentioned above, are stripped of all their rights. In particular, the followers of the Bahaii faith have been subject to summary executions, expropriation of their property, and denied employment and education.

Read the official circular letter concerning a Bahaii employee of the Iranian Air line ‘HOMA’. This document was distributed by the International Association of Bahaiis;

‘Sir,
Insofar as the Bahaii religion is not an official religion of Iran and knowing that , under the former regime, the recruitment of Bahaii employees had been an illicit act, in accordance with the command of the saintly Islamic religion, Bahaii employees do not have the right to remuneration taken from the wealth of the Muslim people, it is henceforth impossible to continue payment of your retirement.’

The official religious minorities have the right of electing only one representative each to the so called Islamic Parliament.

An apostate is defined as a person who has defected from Islam and can belong to one of the following two groups :
- One who is born a Moslem and has then decided to renounce Islam
- One who is born a non-Moslem and has then accepted Islam and has then renounced Islam thereafter becoming a Moslem.

The punishment for the first category above is death if male and life imprisonment if female, however the life imprisonment can be overturned if the person in question repents.
The person belonging to the second category above is given three days to repent, and is otherwise executed on the fourth day.

Non believers such as those supporting communist ideologies have been executed purely for being non-believers. The charge against them has been made as ‘corrupters on earth’.

On February 25th 1995, the government executed Faizullah Makhubat, a 78 years old leading member of Iran’s Jewish community. After taking delivery of the body, Makhubat’s family members discovered that the eyes had been gouged out, the teeth broken and bruises covered the body.
......
******************************

The Jiziya tax in Iran is hidden in the Iranian Tax code and you will not normally find it in their Tax code books. You find it under Sharia regulations, but take the time to talk to Iranian Non-muslims and they will be happy to verify that it is still alive and well. Fortunately world pressure prohibited Iran from imposing special badges to be worn by the non-muslims.

Hello Cory,

Of course Hitchens have Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc. as friends. Most of his so-called Jewish, Muslim and Hindu friends are secular or atheists. Mr. Salman Rushdie may qualify as one of his "Muslim" friends.

Of course Hitchens, like Voltaire, never suggest that religious people ought to be persecuted for their beliefs.

But, somewhere down the years, what they wrote gave intellectual justifications for bigots, and smart ones too, to rationalise why some people are lesser, and thus, is all right to be vilified and persecuted.

Very smart, cultured people from civilised countries with a long intellectual tradition of Reformation and Enlightenment can be not averse to persecutions based on race or religion. Please read the Wannsee Protocol.

You said this essay by Mr. Eboo Patel is contemptuously anti-demoocratic? Why, he was only exercising his freedom of expression as Mr. Harris and Mr. Hitchens was and is. Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

Of course Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Harris would relish all those defending their rights of freedom of expression here. Why not on Mr. Patel's? Or are some people's right of freedom of expresssion more equal or more important than others?

------------------------------------------------

Hello Agnostic,

So, you are from or live in India. Then you would know this play by an Indian playright where there is this line:

"Christians are proud to be Christians. Muslims are proud to be Muslims. Hindus are proud to be secularists."

Shabana Azmi starred in the first theatre version. Needless to say, Hindus did not like the play too much and there was a bit of a controversy on it.

Interestingly, my Indian Hindu friends asserted that the caste system, suttee etc are culture or traditions, not belief.

Victoria writes:

"mostly i find mr hitchens enamored of his own cleverness-"

Really?

Perhaps you're intimidated by his intellect, or maybe it's his use of big words?

I have relatives out in Middle America. Their speech is peppered with double negatives, "ain'ts" and the use of the f-word every other sentence (as in, "I ain't not gonna f*ckin do that f*ckin' sh*t"). I don't happen to speak that way, and I'm quite positive that they find my "left-coast" vocabulary to be the definition of pretentiousness. After all, when one is more comfortable conversing about opera than NASCAR, there must be something WRONG and CLEVER about YOU, right?

So, I take your point, Victoria...or not.

But as clever as Mr Hitchens finds himself, he can't top the French. Let's face it, those people are so snooty and pretentious that they sit around all day speaking French!

How much more clever can one pretend to be?

Agnostic.

I thoroughly enjoyed your post.
You are quite a guy,who can live
surrounded by religion yet rise above it,
despite the pressure to conform
and think like everybody else.
You are one independent thinking dude.
And free at last.
I am very happy for you.
And thanks for the great read.

Meg

Mr Patel says "our faith talk is in the gutter."

That's what happens when one immediately construes justified criticism and observation with racism, as Mr Patel has done with Mr Hitchens.

It's a quick way to lose an argument, Mr Patel, sort of like throwing Hitler and the Nazis into the mix as part of your debating technique.

BTW - anybody interested in seeing how Mr Hitchens fairly dispatches the whole of religious argument need read no further than Hitchens' intro to his latest book, "The Portable Atheist." Spend 10 minutes reading the intro. It might change your life.

Anonymous,
Why Anonymous? Why don't you sign in?

I did not shift my argument at all. You did not even bother reading the post I asked you to take a look at.

So I will refresh the thread for you. At 5:40 pm I wrote:
******************
Ajit writes: "I repeat no Muslim country has jiziya. Don't shift your argument to discrimination now."

I told you that you were ignorant. You obviously do not read very well, do you. What I wrote was:

"do have to pay jiziya one way or another" and one way or another means that they are discriminated and humiliated for being non-muslims. And you are wrong that no Muslim country has jiziya. Pakistan does and Saudi Arabia does. Egypt does impose extra taxes on the copts, but I am not sure if they call them jiziya or not. For the more "one way or another" here is the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=7159&sec_id=7159
*********************

Notice that I did not shift the argument there and told him that I had never limited jiziya to just the poll tax any way, and that his claim of jiziyia being in no muslim country was factually wrong. End of discussion on that as far as I was concerned.

At 6:24 pm Ajit responds to my pointing out that Saudi Arabia imposes jiziya but does not allow any citizen to be non-muslim to actually levy it by showing his bigotry towards homosexuals by calling me a homo and writing:

"I don't know any thing about S. Arabia. But I have heard that there is no income tax or sales tax of any kind in S. Arabia. Therefore, they have no tax structure you speak of. If there is no taxation there, then NOBODY is taxed, foreigners included."

At 7:40 pm I replied:

"There are 57 muslim countries and you wrote that there is no jiziya tax in any muslim country. And now you write that you do not know a thing about S. Arabia!!! There is a cure for ignorance. The first step is to know what you do not know and then say what you do know.

If you would bother reading that S. Arabia does not allow any non-muslim to be a citizen. If a muslim tries to become a non-muslim, he gets three days to recant and become a muslim otherwise he is beheaded publicly. That has been done and recently. But Jiziya is on their books because it is part of the Quran.

So much for your traveling across mid-east. Foreigners are taxed at a flat rate of 20%. The difference between the muslims and non-muslims comes in the fees and the facilities and cost."

I repeated that jiziya is imposed and that there is a tax on non-citizens showing that Ajit did not know anything about the laws of Saudi Arabia let alone of 57 different muslim countries. Ajit never addressed Pakistan, because if he had then I could have shown him the relevant information for jiziya in Pakistan.

Now you,Anonymous, whoever you are, write: "still not accepting that there is no jiziya in any country of the world today."

It is blatantly wrong to say that there is no jiziya in any country!! Jiziya is a requirement of the Quran. Any country that will claim Islamic Sharia as the law of the land will have Jiziya part of its code. For example, Iran has jiziya and zorastrians and christians in Iran pay it.

Then you write: "This is why I think your cause and effect relationship to malign all Muslim countries is flawed. To believe that any country in the world is without problems of cruelties, inequalities, racism, religious prejudice etc. etc. is utopian at best."

I have no interest in maligning Muslims or muslim countries. I am talking about the ideology of Islam. I am talking about the hate that the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad teaches for the kafirs. Of course everyone has their problems. But many muslims go into denial that a lot of their problems originate from their Ideology of Islam. Iran cut off the hands of about 20 young men a few weeks ago because that punishment is part of the Quran. Iran and Saudi Arabia stones young women to death every now and then. That is savagery. And humans around the world have a right to say that is savagery, and saying that it is part of their religion, Islam, is not a good enough excuse. What is wrong in saying that Allah is a savage for ordaining such savage punishments for his creations?

Jihadist

Can't you even think for a moment of the possiblity that you just MAY be mistaken,and maybe just maybe
God is fiction after all? Don't you think it's even possible that he was just made up by our ancestors?
I mean it's possible isn't it?

Harris is a fine writer.He has the rare ability to bring unusual clarity to the religious debate.
Like many nonbelievers on these threads,I was reading philosophy years before Harris was born,and
had read Russell and most other atheist writers years before the current surge of interest in atheism;and I would say Harris is one of the best to come along in a long time,and he perhaps deserves most of the credit for this current interest.
You simply dislike him because you believe in a God,and he says there is no God.
If you could see that today's God is no more real than Zeus and Thor were,you'd see that Harris is quite brilliant,and we really need him to articulate the reasons why we should give up on religion,before religion maybe destroys us all.

I could say the same thing about religious people. Infact the bigotry and hatred that they display towards nonbelievers is of enormous proportions compared to an atheist's disdain towards a believer. An atheist might consider a believer to be ignorant and naive but most religious people I have met consider atheists to be immoral,unprincipled and in some stupid way evil. I am from India and I don't know about how people in the U.S. would react to an atheist but this is the reaction I get here. When I told my college friends(most of them Hindus) that I am an atheist they first thought I was joking. When they realized I wasn't they told me that something must be terribly wrong with me. A Christian girl told me that I would be sent to Hell when Judgement Day comes because I refused to believe the 'glaring truth' that everyone else could see and feel. I really felt like an idiot that day and decided never to speak about my non-belief to the so called 'believers' who think that everyone else is wrong other than themselves. That Christian girl is not only absolutely sure about the existence of God but somehow thinks that Christianity is superior to Hinduism (the dominant religion of India) because Hinduism is polytheistic. This would seem very funny to an atheist but my other Hindu friends at college(who were all Hindus) werre offended by her and they got into a huge fight with her while I watched amusedly. So much for inter-religious co-operation! Harris is absolutely right when he says "religion is violent,irrational,intolerant and bigoted" not only to non- believers but also to people who have differing reigious beliefs. Religion believes in exclusivity and hence every religious person thinks his religion is better than others( you might differ but most religious poeple I have met think their religion is better than others). I live in a country which is home to all the major religions of the world(Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism) and most of the problems in this country can be attributed to religion including that degrading system of castes.

Pam,

You : What Hitchens and others are proposing is jettisoning superstition. They're not trying to replace it with anything.

Moi : Yes. And nature abhors a vacuum. So does man. Or else we won't have Mr. Harris supplementing his non-belief with Zen Buddhism for personal spiritualism or meditation.

If you remember in the sixties and seventies, Americans who jettisioned their former faiths replace them with another, from Hare Krishna to New Age this and that.

Good night, thanks and regards

"J"

Isn't it clear that people can't choose their race and that's why it's unfair to hold it against them. People can choose their beliefs. It is our right under the first amendment to base our respect for someone on their beliefs. Must I offer respect to a Scientologist who believes that humans are infested with the souls of criminal aliens? No? Then why must I respect someone who believes that after I die I will be tortured for eternity because my beliefs differ from theirs? People like Hitchens are happy to keep Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus, etc. as friends, and they certainly never suggest that these religious people ought to be persecuted for their beliefs. This essay struck me as contemptuously anti-democratic. Why did Mr. Patel never recognize the glaring fact that I mentioned in my first two sentences?

I admit that I donot sit here 24 hours a day and read everything for me to memorize. Instead, I read what an argument any one is developing to support his/her argument.

The fact remains that you shifted your argument to conversion and citizenship and failed to agree that there is jiziya in any country today. Now you are shifting to history and the issue of bonded labor--still not accepting that there is no jiziya in any country of the world today.

Your line of reasoning is endless because it will keep shifting.

The fact that not too long ago the kkk in Missisippi and other places lynch mobbed black people can not be and should not be used against Christianity just as the example of Timothy McVeigh should not be be used to malign all white people or white Christians for that matter. So many people here have written about the violent history of Christianity. In my view that should not be used to malign all Christians of today or hold them responsible in any way for what happened in the past.

This is why I think your cause and effect relationship to malign all Muslim countries is flawed. To believe that any country in the world is without problems of cruelties, inequalities, racism, religious prejudice etc. etc. is utopian at best.

pam writes: "Based on a lot of things that he wrote/said, I have trouble believing that Jefferson was actually a Christian. I think he just saw some value in some of the supposed sayings of Jesus, so kept those parts in and redacted the supernatural parts."

You may be right. However, Jefferson identified himself as a Christian in letters to those he sent his bible. See: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

Since I do not know what the exact definition of a "Christian" is by which I can judge whether he was one or not, I take him at his word. If you define a Christian as one who believes in the divinity of Jesus then Jefferson was not a chrisitian, but if you define a chrisitian as one who tried to follow "Jesus's" teachings then he seems to be one, and he seems to have put in some effort to carefully delineate what he considered Jesus's teachings. Either way, I have great respect for Jefferson's intellect whether Jesus existed or not, and I think there is a great deal of good in Jefferson's Bible just as there is in Socarates Dialog, or the Buddhist Dhammpada, or the Hindu's Geeta.

"well, conventional ateism would be the aforementioned fundaMENTALITY.

while theyre busy jettisoning the societal influence and structure of religious paradigms, they seem to have forgotten that nature, and society- abhor a vacuum.

surely theyve considered that if they expel religion, some opportunistic structure will take its place."

Sorry, but I don't know what "fundamental atheism" is, either. That's *your* construct, not something that any atheist has stipulated to.

All atheism is, as you must know after a year on this forum, is a lack of belief in a supernatural creator.

No atheist writer that I've read has advocated *outlawing* religious belief. On the contrary, we're the staunchest supporters of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights protecting freedom of religion.

But if religion were to disappear for the *right* reasons - an educated populace rationally, and individually, deciding to eschew superstition - there would *be* no vacuum to be filled.

... and if you replace the names "Hitchens" and "Harris" with "a Mexican" or "a black person" that post would be offensive. Of course, if we modify the content of someone's speech we can then classify it as offensive. This little trick is used all the time, and is just as silly here as it is anywhere else.

Patel, like many other religious types, misquote and mischaracterize Hitches and Harris to serve their own purposes. I would encourage people to read Patel's words skeptically, then check the real sources (Hitchens and Harris). You'll find that Patel is wrong.

Anonymous please have the decency to sign in. Or you prefer to argue from the Shadows?

You write: "This is a classic example of shifting argument. A. Kafir writes about jiziya. When someone points out that there is no jiziya in any of the 57 Muslim countries, he shifts his argument to citizenship and conversion. He conveniently forgets about jiziya issue that he raised originally."

You are referring to my post January 26, 2008 of 7:40 pm. I assume you did not take the time to read any of the earlier posts on this topic because it does get tedious to plow through 100's. However, I suggest you take a look at my post of 5:25 pm. I did not shift my argument at all. Ajit misquotes me to begin with and then I named two countries to counter his claim and he withdrew to that he does not know anything about one country and kept silent about the other.

Unfortunately, the blog does not thread the posts by replies but keeps them as a serial list. So if you want to understand the Jiziya issue then I suggest that you start reading from about 4 pm posts onwards and catch up. I did not forget Jiziya issue at all. As a matter of fact it is one of my very favorite subject matters.

Did you know that in India, Ajit's country of origin, the jiziya collector used to spit in the mouth of the Kafir who he felt was held in esteem by the other Kafirs? That was a fairly traditional way to humiliate. After Akbar married into the kafirs and tried to create a syncretic religion, jiziya was soften for a few generations but then it was revived under his great grand son with a vengence. It is something to read what what has been acceptable as jiziya through the various countries. The DEVSHIRME system is well known and was justified as jiziya by the turkish Mullahs. Begun by the Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359), it existed for about 300 years. It consisted of a regular levy of Christian children from the Christian population of the Balkans. These youngsters, aged from fourteen to twenty, were Islamized and enslaved for their army.

Then there is the Haris of Sindh who are essentially the slaves in Pakistan at present. They are not called slaves but "bonded" laborers. Haris means "defeated" and they are the descendents of the hindus defeated by the arabs about a thousand years ago. The reason why they got into this condition is that they were unable to pay the original "jiziya" and since then they have been paying it off for centuries.

A. Kafir,
Based on a lot of things that he wrote/said, I have trouble believing that Jefferson was actually a Christian. I think he just saw some value in some of the supposed sayings of Jesus, so kept those parts in and redacted the supernatural parts.

sorry pam, i guess were posting at the same timeishness.

well, conventional ateism would be the aforementioned fundaMENTALITY.

while theyre busy jettisoning the societal influence and structure of religious paradigms, they seem to have forgotten that nature, and society- abhor a vacuum.

surely theyve considered that if they expel religion, some opportunistic structure will take its place.

well certainly jacob people can get trapped i superficialities.

i see you were proposing to blow up all the mosques recently- whats up with that?

i agree with you jacob- outward manifestations of piety for public consumption are their own reward-

you know it is what is iside your heart, and your intentions- which i generally find very good- (except for the blowing up all mosques thing, which does give one pause)

this has been an interesting thread, not the ususal degeneration into islamophobic vitriol-

id like to see a little imaginative reolution, but- well- i guess alot of the really good thoughts have already been thunk-

im at something of a loss to find new alternatives- but i havent actually tried at all- as im pretty satisfied with the wisdom of islam from a sociological perspective.

"so, you are proposing conventional atheism sans any creative inventions- but are bothered by my own lack of convention?"

What is "conventional atheism"?

What Hitchens and others are proposing is jettisoning superstition. They're not trying to replace it with anything.

pam-
yes, i guess my sans caps writing style is a bit unconventional.

so, you are proposing conventional atheism sans any creative inventions- but are bothered by my own lack of convention?

that is an odd combination

Att: Victoria, et al;

Could it be that some Men think with their penis's and woman think with their vigina's?

Trivia: Did you know that Sex is 'Not' LOVE?

Trivia: Did you know that going to a Mosque does not make onr religious?

So, there are those who think with their Quran's not scruples!

A/K/A "SuperStupidStitious" Psychosis or Syndrome. Depends on the Magnitudals!

PS: Mr. Hitchenson, Hawins, Dawkins, Harris, Jacoby , "i", et al are APOCALYPTARiANS! Not Pre-Apocalyptarians like Islamic lover Mr. Eboo Patel Et al!

So, Which is more Blinder, the QURAN Book or LOVE Life/Photons?!

A. Kafir wrote:

"There are 57 muslim countries and you wrote that there is no jiziya tax in any muslim country. And now you write that you do not know a thing about S. Arabia!!! There is a cure for ignorance. The first step is to know what you do not know and then say what you do know."

Now read this from A. Kafir:

"If you would bother reading that S. Arabia does not allow any non-muslim to be a citizen. If a muslim tries to become a non-muslim, he gets three days to recant and become a muslim otherwise he is beheaded publicly. That has been done and recently. But Jiz...."

This is a classic example of shifting argument. A. Kafir writes about jiziya. When someone points out that there is no jiziya in any of the 57 Muslim countries, he shifts his argument to citizenship and conversion. He conveniently forgets about jiziya issue that he raised originally.

Anonymous quoted:

"religion 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."

Sam Harris pr anybody else could not have said it better."

Of course, or course. Let us take his sentence and look at it very, very lightly.

"Religion is violent"

In the last century and now, it is proven it is not religion but states in pursuit of secular states' interests - political, security, economic.

"Religion is irrational"

In the last century and now, secular ideologies proved to be as irrational as religion. Need I remind on fascism, nazism, Moaism, Stalinism, Pol Potism etc.

"Religion is intolerant, allied to tribalism and bigotry"

In the last century and now too, it is proven race can be an issue of intolerance and more posionous. Been to Asia lately? The Japanese and Chinese are quite rascist for one. And please don't tell me it is Licoln the secularist who abolished slavery. It was the Christians themselves against slavery who started the campaign against slavery and leading to the Civil War too.

Tell that to Americans who waged the Civil War. Or to the Burmese Junta, or to Europe during World War I and World War II.

"....invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."

And uhh...tell that to the child labour abusers in China and Indochina.

Ignorance is due to lack of access to proper education.

And oh, tell the Japanese and Korean and Chinese ladies about how religion is suppressing them.

But never mind. Harris is infallible and all knowing, no?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Victoria writes:
" i have to be honest i dont find mr hitchens or mr harris very compelling when it comes to challenging mediocrity-

their reliance on deconstruction without the necessary construction leaves me , well- pretty bored."

and

" a reaction TO- as oppposed to an imaginitive or creative construction OF a purposeful or positive alternative."

Victoria, it may not be obvious to you, but the last thing any atheist wants is another "creative construction."

Our perception of the problem is that there are far too many creative ideologies out there already.

OBTW - your posts would be far more readable if you would use normal capitalization. I realize that it's extra work to press that shift key, but the convention arose for a very good reason.

HI E FAVE- i got that info about his decision to reject religion from his videos which mr patel linked,

i liked what THINKABOUTIT said-
(s)he pointed out that mr hitchens is a fundie atheist.

possibly this explains why i dont feel very interested in his opinions.

the fundamentality (my own made up word) that pervades any ideology- seems marked by a certain arrogant superiority- with a competitve streak which precludes inclusion and acceptance of others who are different.

intolerant and judgemental behavior can be found across the spectrum.

one of the concepts ive picked up in islam is that one(meaning me) must look and approach our fellow humans with a suspicion for the good intentions within them.

no one else has to agree or disagree- it is how i regulate my own being.

i have a very difficult time identifying the good intentions in mr hitchens-

it is not enough to be distrubed- one has to figure out exactly what in particular distrubs one-

mr hitchens doesnt say anything new- or very revolutionary- that is no great fault-
but his intentions seem askew to my own perception

peace all

SEATTLE DODGER- YOUR COMMENT
"i'd like to draw your attention to the gay baiting by @ajit.

he has already asserted that atheists are mostly gays and others who 'fail' to meet the standards of morality required by religion. and now he's using the 'homo' reference as an ad homium insult."

o- i didnt find ajit in any way denigrating o homosexuals-

unless one makes the connection that ahteists are "bad" so to imply that some homosexuals become atheists as a reaction against religions judgement of them?

he did however, propose that someone may ask kafir if he was homosexual, i assume it was to needle him.

because kafir interpreted his comment as hatred towards homosexuals-
i also have a difficult time finding good intentions in kafir- as he seems to spring towards hatred too easily for my tastes.

i could be wrong- but i interpreted his homo kafirus to refer to the family of man, not a dog whistle homophobia.

well, i try to assume the good in somoen until they repeatedly prove me wrong-
i found his other comments balanced and reasoanble.

To jizya deniers:
The non-Muslims dominated by Muslims did not have to only endure the humiliation of the "Omar Pact" but had also to be burdened by inordinately high taxes; jizya and kharaj as described below.

September 20, 2004
IslamOnline: jizya is "fair" by Robert Spencer
"I have often encountered, in person and on radio shows, Muslims who claim that the jizya, the special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat, the Muslim obligation of charitable giving. This is patently absurd on the face of it, of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye'or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires; indeed, Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians. Rodinson even points out in his biography of Muhammad that at certain times conversions to Islam were forbidden, as they were destroying the tax base!
For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: "Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya" (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: "it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman" (Hedaya I.vi).
Also Andrew Bostom has sent me these illuminating extracts:
The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.
That's from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja’far’s Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.
And this:
There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.
Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.
And of course the bottom line is that radical Muslims who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states, will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted".

Anonymous writes: "The blogers used hate as well as spreading misinformation about a particular religion or country (e.g.jiziya and no taxation in that country), yet when some one pointed out the reasons for this kind of behavior (e.g. deviance among many others)they are all flocking together to call it hate. The cause and effect relationship for assigning hate is flawed."

I do not understand what you said there. Please spell it out. What are you saying?

PAM writes: "Do you think it's wrong to say that all Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God? It's the single thing that defines the group, and it isn't something that's beyond their control."

A minor issue that the example may not be accurate, although I agree with the point you were trying to make. The christian that I personally hold in a very high Esteem is Thomas Jefferson. He did redact the bible to eliminat what he deemed unnecessary and superstitious stuff. It is known as the Jefferson Bible. http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Jesus being the son of God is absent in that Bible.

I read the following on a blog a few months ago which exemplifies how the blogers here are using their predetermined mindsets to malign religion. And they are not even ashamed of contradicting themselves in the same post and constantly shifting their points of contention. Read on:

"It is amazing how supposedly educated people assign cause and effect relationship to a predetermined mindset. Consider the following examples:

(1) A student pores over the prison records and finds that our prison population is overwhelmingly black. He assigns criminality to skin color. Of course, the student should have considered the historical, economic and educational status of the black population at large and compared it with other groups.

The student should also have taken into consideration the bias of the law enforcement agencies against blacks. A black, for example, driving a car is more likely to be stopped by the police than an individual of any other group. Such an analysis might give this student an obligation to draw a different conclusion than his first superficial conclusion.

(2) A student wants to know the death rate of a particular state. He examines the death records of all the hospitals of that state and then calculates the death rate by dividing the total number of deaths from hospital records by the total population per 1,000 of that state. Should the death rates be calculated this way?

This student gets an 'F' grade from this professor.

(3) A medical researcher looks at the data of all the heart attack patients and finds that most of the victims of heart attack had grey hair and concludes that there is a correlation between heart attack and grey hair. He failed to recognize that there are millions of people in the age group 30-50 who have grey hair but never had heart attack.

This professor-referee recommended that this medical researcher's paper be rejected on grounds of poor methodology."

The blogers used hate as well as spreading misinformation about a particular religion or country (e.g.jiziya and no taxation in that country), yet when some one pointed out the reasons for this kind of behavior (e.g. deviance among many others)they are all flocking together to call it hate. The cause and effect relationship for assigning hate is flawed.

Nicholas Price writes:
" the case he is trying to make is that blanket statements about a religious group fall under the same heading of hate speech that blanket statements about a racial or ethnic group do. Such speech fails to recognize the diversity within any identity group, whether defined by race, culture, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, and robs those who fall under said heading of their humanity."

While I appreciate the thought that you put into your post, Nicholas, I have to disagree with the point above.

That does apply when one is generalizing about a group that is characterized by something beyond their control, such as skin color, or sexual orientation. To say that all [fill in the blank] do such-and-such, would be just as you stated. However, what Hitchens, et al. are talking about is a *belief*, not a people. Do you think it's wrong to say that all Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God? It's the single thing that defines the group, and it isn't something that's beyond their control.

I think, therefore, that no one is being robbed of his or her humanity by what they say, and their diversity, or lack thereof, is entirely beside the point.

Hello Jerry,

You : Do all Muslims quickly resort to name-calling, capitalized yelling, and all out "Sewer Speech"?

Moi : We are just getting into the spirit of non-Muslims' creative and inventive invectives. "Sewer speech" is a new one. Possibly related to gutter speech and gutter rats or sewer rats in American English. We have to use American English and idiom so most heren will understand.

You : I've posted a few times here- but don't have the time to stay current and tend to mostly read when I can. On Eboo Patel's thread I see MORON, IDIOT, ISLAMOPHOBE, BIGOT, even SOME RETIRED OLD FOGIE LIVING IN A RATTY OLD APARTMENT WITH A BOTTLE OF PILLS FOR COMFORT... and now HOMO A. KAFIRUS..

Moi : Actually, Islamophobe is used not so much as there are very few Muslim posters/bloggers in On Faith. Anti-Semiticism is used a lot. Morons, idiots and bigots are generically used by all. i am using bigots for the first time in this thread.

Homo A Kafirus is some sort of pig latin. Someone here really don't like A Kafir and not only Latinised him, but ascribed a sexual preference to him. Now, that is slander. Ajit, please desist.

You : Is this something common among ALL muslims? or just common among the Muslims posting to Eboo Patel's threads?

Moi : Actually, we tend to notice the bile, vile and vitriol by those of other faiths regarding our faith and directed to us. Have you seen some directed on Jews, Pagans, Mormons and Catholics apart from atheists.

Generally, Muslims are reactive here in On Faith. They came in fine, and then, they react in kind to what is directed to them - a sort of tit for tat, spit for spat. Nobody dies here. Americans call this free speech and and freedom of expression no?

I call it "fighting words". It is in your Constitution too I think - fighting words. Correct me here.

And we still don't know where to draw the line on what is offensive speech, what is hate speech, what is incediary speech, what is politically correct speech, what is impolitically correct speech.

The rule of thumb is, what is "offensive" to you, is my excercising my free speech to speak the "truth". I am sorry if what I say offended you, but I am not sorry for what I said.

There have you.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Ajit writes:" Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and then
H. A kafirus--a species of a new kind: hate mongering."

Lol! You are a dhimmi! You do not even have enough self-respect to speak what is in your heart and mind. If speaking truth about Islam is hate then so be it. I do not speak against muslims, never have and never will. But I do lay bare the hatred that against the non-muslims that is Islam.

You show yourself to be ignorant, a fool and now a transparent hypocrite. Arn't we clever, dhimmi?

"Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and then
H. A kafirus--a species of a new kind: hate mongering."

Don't try to make it seem that you were discussing human taxonomy - if any of us had any doubts what you meant, your post from 3:36 PM makes it abundantly, and disgustingly, clear.

It has been interesting to read the reactions to this post. A. Kafir and several others raised a very important point, namely, that a person's religious identity is not the same as his or her racial identity, noting that the latter is a matter of physical ancestry while the former is more of an ideological commitment. They are right in pointing this out, and would be justified in criticizing any writer that would try to make such a claim.

However, the point of Eboo's article is not to claim that these two types of identities are the same. Rather, the case he is trying to make is that blanket statements about a religious group fall under the same heading of hate speech that blanket statements about a racial or ethnic group do. Such speech fails to recognize the diversity within any identity group, whether defined by race, culture, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, and robs those who fall under said heading of their humanity. It is interesting, therefore, that Hitchens and others claim to be more enlightened than religious people when they prove themselves, time and again, guilty of the same kind of narrow-minded hatred of which they accuse the targets of their vitriol.

Now, let me make something clear. I appreciate Christopher Hitchens. I find him to be one of the more eloquent writers out there when it comes to his commentaries on different issues within the public square. Several of his questions and criticisms of religious ideologies are good questions and should be asked. I am glad that he has had and continues to have the freedom that he does to raise them.

However, the contempt with which he raises these questions seems to point to his own unwillingness to truly find answers. Instead, he is satisfied to hold up the worst representatives of religious groups as their spokesmen, while comparing them to the best within his own group. This is hardly what I would call a reasoned examination and fails to contribute to any dialogue that aims to be truly civil and illuminating.

In conclusion, I would simply ask that, rather than being distracted from the main point of the post, we revisit just what is being said. Simply, that the language being used by Hitchens and others still falls under the heading of hate speech and does not truly serve the purposes of dialogue. Instead, it tends to alienate and strip others of their humanity by relegating them to two-dimensional stereotypes. It is my hope that Hitchens, Harris, and others will still be a part of the discussion. However, truly constructive discussion can only come when we are all willing to lay aside our stereotypes and fear of one another and begin reasoning together as human beings.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and then
H. A kafirus--a species of a new kind: hate mongering.

If anyone has any doubts about what gutter discourse or hate speech is really about, just refer to some of the last few posts by Ajit - a homophobic bigot of the first water.

Victoria, please – Hitchens was not brainwashed as a child to be an atheist. He figured out religion didn’t make sense on his own. I’m acquainted with several other people who came to it on their own as children, even though they received childhood indoctrination, as Hitchens did.

Also he didn’t form his “worldview” at age nine. Where on earth did you get that? It was at age 9 that a kindly teacher told his class something he realized had no basis in fact – that God had designed nature to make it pleasing to our eyes.

Hope that helps.

Dhimmi Ajit writes: "I don't know any thing about S. Arabia. But I have heard that there is no income tax or sales tax of any kind in S. Arabia. Therefore, they have no tax structure you speak of. If there is no taxation there, then NOBODY is taxed, foreigners included."

There are 57 muslim countries and you wrote that there is no jiziya tax in any muslim country. And now you write that you do not know a thing about S. Arabia!!! There is a cure for ignorance. The first step is to know what you do not know and then say what you do know.

If you would bother reading that S. Arabia does not allow any non-muslim to be a citizen. If a muslim tries to become a non-muslim, he gets three days to recant and become a muslim otherwise he is beheaded publicly. That has been done and recently. But Jiziya is on their books because it is part of the Quran.

So much for your traveling across mid-east. Foreigners are taxed at a flat rate of 20%. The difference between the muslims and non-muslims comes in the fees and the facilities and cost.

Why do you insist on demonstrating that you are a fool?

Anti A. Kafir writes:
"The purpose of Zakat is to help poor people."

Not true. It is to help poor muslims. Zakat can be used to help non-muslims to convert to Islam. Zakat cannot be used to help non-muslims. Since S. Arabia does not have any non-muslim citizens, poor or not, the issue of using Zakat for non-muslims does not arise. However, Pakistan also collects Zakat and Ushr, and they do have non-muslim citizens. The Zakat ordinance of Pakistan explicitly prohibts any zakat funds collected to be spent on non-muslims. The hatred for the Kafir (the non-muslims) is the corner stone of Islam.

My, my, my!

This is fun. Let's rip.

Now we have complaints and whines about Muslims quick to complain about their adopted homelands in the west?

And all these evangelical/Christians as A Kafir and Anonymous possibly!

Well, I suppose Muslims migrating to the west can only complain about Islam and Muslims eh, to be considered er, right and fine.

So, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, Christianity must be crushed, do anyone here really think there will not be calls for her deportation by the red, white and blue true and real American types?

Selectivity, no? All right for her to ask for Islam to be crushed and Muslims not to be allowed to migrate to the west. She's a bigot too, wrapped up and out in "Enlightenment", playing on and feeding on the phobias and securities of some in the west.

So, how can we seperate the Christian extremists with seriously bigoted views on migrants, non-Caucasian ethnic groups and non-Christians as passsionate supporters of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie from atheists who support them because they would support anyone who is against any and all religion?

And come to think of it, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie don't whine too much on other religions or at all.

Can one conclude that atheists only focus on their former beliefs because they not only find their former faith not true for them anymore, but they can't deal with or stand up to some members of their family on faith?

And about Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Harris, well, the "truth" is, and the "fact" is, they do make remarks about theists, if made by theists about atheists, will see a rise in atheists.

Come now, we have seen how some atheists get really unhappy when some believers call some of them, "militant atheists", or to relate communism to atheism.

Religion is cancer? Well, "Dr." Hitchens will have a lot to do. One of him, or plus Dr. "Harris" will be busy. Over 4 billion people inflicted with the belief virus and still spreading to even China, Vietnam, and with new strains too in Latin America, Africa, Asia.

If Hitchens and Harris are so sure of their "universal truths" they would not have had to resort to, er, language deem illogical or offensive by believers. Offensive is aggressive. Aggressive is provacative. Provocative is starting a fight.

Saying one is anti-theist is making a political statement. One has to be with him or against him. What are the chances believers who are theists, will be with him, or against him?

In his declaration of war against theists, in stating he is anti-theist, Hitchens obviously is not into smart targetting but carpet bombing. This is a man who mess up in his writings on Iraq and the Middle East. The Malays have a saying, "The intention is good, but the way is flawed".

Come now, Hitchens and Harris are not the best atheist writer-thinkers on the block. They seem more scarred by their childhood traumas on the faiths they grew up with. And hey, we are not their parents, family and schools forcing religion on Hitchens and Harris.

If I want to read on atheism, better from other atheist writers. Just like in faith, there are good advocates and writers of atheism just as there are bad advocates and writers on faith by believers.

And er, Hitchens is not the first bigot against religious groups. For one, Voltaire is anti-Semitic, blaming monotheism/religion on Jews and Judaism.

It would seem that for atheist-writers, one must not only give reasons why there is no God, but that one must also be against specific or all religious groups to make one's case.

Does what Voltaire said about Jews have anything to do with anti-Semiticism in Europe in spite of the Enlightement?

Are some atheist writers having a bad case of exceptionalism in being criticised and being above criticism for even a wee thing?

And why are some here busy changing the topic as to whether Hitchens and Harris are bigots into generalisations and stereotyping and getting away with it?

Are Hitchens and Harris the only two writer-thinkers on atheism and, without them atheism will collapse?

Thanks and regards

"J"

Let's see - every senator ever elected in the USA has been a religious person. Every President has been a Christian. Every congressman save one a religious person. In America it'd be impossible for an athiest to be elected to nearly any position of responsibility, simply because they don't choose to pretend that they believe in supernatural beings that control our destiny.
Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor persecuted religious folks who hold a dictatorship over the rest of us. Religious people are highly judgemental and intolorant of non-religious people. Your kind think we need to be improved, think that we have no basis for our beliefs. Yet somehow I'm supposed to get choked up because a couple of writers have pointed out all the misery that religious folks have caused?
Give me a break. If your faith can't take a little criticism, maybe you have something to work on!

I have a honest question for Eboo Patel and I would like an honest answer.

Do all Muslims quickly resort to name-calling, capitalized yelling, and all out "Sewer Speech"?

I've posted a few times here- but don't have the time to stay current and tend to mostly read when I can. On Eboo Patel's thread I see MORON, IDIOT, ISLAMOPHOBE, BIGOT, even SOME RETIRED OLD FOGIE LIVING IN A RATTY OLD APARTMENT WITH A BOTTLE OF PILLS FOR COMFORT... and now HOMO A. KAFIRUS..

Is this something common among ALL muslims? or just common among the Muslims posting to Eboo Patel's threads?

I used the search engine to get information on Taxation in S. Arabia. Here is the first paragraph of the article:

Income taxes of Saudi and expatriate employees working in the Kingdom were abolished in 1975. All Saudi citizens and all Saudi companies, however, must pay a religious tax -- zakat -- of 2.5% annually on profits and on the assessable amount for individuals.

The purpose of Zakat is to help poor people.

moderators,

i'd like to draw your attention to the gay baiting by @ajit.

he has already asserted that atheists are mostly gays and others who 'fail' to meet the standards of morality required by religion. and now he's using the 'homo' reference as an ad homium insult.

not that this is any surprise, but the casual bigotry and open homophobia that so many 'faithful' exhibit is still repugnent.

Homo A. Kafirus wrote:

"And before you in your ignorance misunderstand, Saudi Arabia is 100% muslim, by law a citizen of Saudi Arabia cannot be a non-muslim. Hence they cannot implement jiziya because there is no non-muslim there to put the jiziya on. But it is part of their law because they follow the Quran. However, their tax structure does tax the non-muslim foreigners differently than the muslims, besides all the other horrendous disabilities they impose upon the non-muslims workers."

I don't know any thing about S. Arabia. But I have heard that there is no income tax or sales tax of any kind in S. Arabia. Therefore, they have no tax structure you speak of. If there is no taxation there, then NOBODY is taxed, foreigners included.

Again, Homo A. Kafirus is distorting and spreading lies.

Homo A. Kafirus does not realize that his hate-filled posts here give him zero credibility in the eyes of unbiased non-Muslims as well.

Patel makes a hollow argument. People are born with racial and ethnic characteristics; they acquire religion. You cannot equate genetic makeup which cannot change with religion which can.

what happened to comments

MOHAMED MALLECK, SWIFT CURRENT, CANADA writes:
"MR. MARK,

"Instead of talking nonsense, could you not have simply kept your mouth shut?

"You approvingly repeat what RAJNI writes : "I agree with Anonymous. Muslims like Patel, Malleck, Zakaria are quick to criticize their adopted homelands for anything they do not like ...'."

Dear Mr Malleck -

Perhaps you also are too swift to adopt a position of victimhood.

To begin with, I in no sense "approvingly" repeated what RANJI wrote. I simply followed netiquette and quoted his words verbatim so that I could comment upon them without paraphrase or prejudice.

I then proceeded to make my comment, which began thus:

"I disagree strongly. I often hear Muslims speaking out against such massacres."

What part of "I STRONGLY DISAGREE" do you find objectionable? Perhaps you don't realize that I quoted RANJI for the express purpose of disagreeing strongly with his words.

Here's an idea, MM: take a chill pill, READ what people actually write, stop assuming the worst in people...and GROW UP.

Ajit,

And before you in your ignorance misunderstand, Saudi Arabia is 100% muslim, by law a citizen of Saudi Arabia cannot be a non-muslim. Hence they cannot implement jiziya because there is no non-muslim there to put the jiziya on. But it is part of their law because they follow the Quran. However, their tax structure does tax the non-muslim foreigners differently than the muslims, besides all the other horrendous disabilities they impose upon the non-muslims workers.

Could this essay possibly be any more one sided? Good grief. Yes yes, it's always those evil atheists that are messing it up for everyone else. Why can't we just go back to the good old days when they were imprisoned or killed for their blasphemy and mostly kept their mouths shut out of fear, as it should be! They have it far too easy right now. Before you know it, it might even be possible for one of them to get elected to a high public office! Okay, you're right. That last bit is just crazy talk.

To be serious, here's the thing... atheists don't define themselves by their beliefs. Religionists do. I'm no more offended when someone vigorously disagrees with my lack of religious belief than I am when they express dislike for a tv show I think is great. If I cried discrimination over a tv show everyone would think me nuts, and utterly childish, and no one would be calling me a bigot for expressing how utterly inane I think American Idol is.

I am not the tv shows I watch any more than you are the religion you adhere to, but many religious persons don't see it that way - are specifically taught not to see it that way. If you express any vigorous disagreement with their religious ideas it's taken as tantamount to an attack on their person and character. It's nothing more than a disingenuous indoctrinated social taboo that seeks to stifle dissent by casting the dissenter as a despoiler and a cad. Thankfully now it's only enforced through tut-tutting, finger waving, and cast aspersions rather than with swords, stones, and various torture devices.

Someone I doubt that Mr. Patel is so cognitively challenged that he doesn't understand the difference between characteristics people are born with (race and ethnicity) and ideas they might have been taught (religion). It simple intellectual dishonesty. This essay is simply the typical faux victim routine, and a thinly veiled smear of non-believers for having the temerity to voice their opinions.

Ajit writes: "I repeat no Muslim country has jiziya. Don't shift your argument to discrimination now."

I told you that you were ignorant. You obviously do not read very well, do you. What I wrote was:

"do have to pay jiziya one way or another" and one way or another means that they are discriminated and humiliated for being non-muslims. And you are wrong that no Muslim country has jiziya. Pakistan does and Saudi Arabia does. Egypt does impose extra taxes on the copts, but I am not sure if they call them jiziya or not. For the more "one way or another" here is the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=7159&sec_id=7159

You come for the land of the dhimmis, the indians. You are not even taught or told about your own history and what Islam has done to you over the centuries. For a very recent indication of where you dhimmis stand:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2722515.cms
" Highly placed sources said that keeping in view the prospects of street battles flaring up again over the Taslima issue," You and your lot are kept in line with prospects of street battles at the drop of a pin. And you are going to tell free people how to behave? You want the americans to put themselves in a position where they should be terrified of street battles amongst them. Right now they are dealing with just their planes being used as missiles against them. Great Advice. You be happy as a dhimmi and kiss Mullah ass all you want.

IBRAHIM MAHFOUZ,

You would already have been locked up if anybody, other than I, cared.

But hereunder is what I posted for Mr. MARK;

" When did I criticize anything about Canada? There is NOTHING to criticize about Canada. It is the MOST CIVILIZED country in the world -- the exact opposite of Bush's US of A.

Oh! not the PEOPLE of USofA, who are wonderful folks, mostly, bar idiotics immigrants like you who are so self-deprecating that you are ready to basj every other immigrant like yourself -- immigrant to the USofA, I mean! I don't want decent Americans to leave Muslim lands but neocons and, of course, hopelessly sick people like you whoever might be hiding behind a name like Ibrahim Mahfouz.

Again, by the way, those who want to see me off to a Muslim land, which is one of my fondest wishes even if I may not like their leaders but love their people: will you guys also ask the Americans who don't like Muslims to leave Muslim lands? Those who are neutral, and even more so those who respect Muslims, can stay -- they are welcome: Ahlan Wa Sahlan. "

Why hate Hitchins for speaking his mind?

As far as we know there are no gods.

If in fact gods are made up,then Hitchins is right.

The indoctrinated believe there is a god,not because there's any evidence,not because there anything that would point to the existence of a god,but simply because the indoctrination process has done its work.
Many of them are smart enough to acknowledge that had they been born and indoctrinated in a different culture,they would believe in something entirely different now,but they still can't shake off their present indoctrination.
Indoctrination works like that. Only the unusual individual can overcome it.

Religious leaders are attacking atheists all the time. Not ALL religious leaders -- but some are! Does that mean ALL religious folks hate atheists?

No.

The same applies in reverse: You have found a few atheists who attack religion in general. Based on my experience, I would say they are a minority of all atheists.

Let me give you MY perspective. I am an atheist, but I accept all points of views except fundamentalist ones -- I don't care what the ideology -- meaning Christians, Jews, Muslims ... and yes, even atheists.

Hitchens is a fundi atheist. The Christian leaders who denounce atheists are typically fundies. It is fundies I don't like -- ALL flavors. And yes, I don't like Hitches precisely because he is a fundamentalist atheist and therefore is hateful to others who disagree with him.

Can you say the same for your fundamentalist religious brethren who attack atheists and other religious beliefs other than their own???

Or do you embrace them -- say their hate attacks are ok?

Ajit,

Do you hate homosexuals? Islam kills homosexuals. Iran has hung how many in the last year? And every place has problems. You want to know whether I am homosexual? Why? How will you verify whether I am or not over the web? The fact that you want to know and you ask the question says more about you than it says anything about me.

I do not write anything about places but I write about Islam and how Islam dictates what the policies of many of the muslims countries are. Are you telling that the standard of Muslims around the country is the tiny commercial city state of Dubai?
You have to be kidding. Even you cannot be that big a fool, or are you?

A. Kafir wrote:

"Ajit do you thing the readers here cannot look up the laws of various countries around the world. "

You can look at the laws of any country or practice of discrimination you like. My origin is India. We have oulawed dowry, caste discrimination (Hindu Code bill in the early 50s) but that did not eliminate the caste system nor did it abolish dowry in reality. India is trying to work out her problems. It will probably take a century or two. I was discriminated in my own country of origin. I am confident things will change.

I repeat no Muslim country has jiziya. Don't shift your argument to discrimination now. Look at what Barak Obama is facing or Hillary Clinton for her gender. That does not mean America is not different today than even 20 years ago.

Your hate filled agenda is deplorable to say the least.

Ajit writes: "A. Kafir is dishonest and is known to distort. I have lived in a Muslim country and have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East. I never had to pay any jiziya he refers to.

None of the Muslim countries impose jiziya on non-Muslims. Some don't even have an income tax."

Amazing! Are you a multi nick of Mullah Victoria? Ajit do you thing the readers here cannot look up the laws of various countries around the world.
Would you like to tell the readers what are the laws for the Christian copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Iraq, Zorastrians in Iran, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, Christians in Indonesia or Malaysia?
Non-muslims cannot even be buried in Saudi Arabia. Christians cannot take a cross into Saudi Arabia. The list is long of the discrimination against the non-muslims in the muslim lands.

To be specific, which muslim country have you lived in Ajit? Let us start from there.

Mohammed Malleck:
You claim that I deserve to be locked in a mental hospital for suggesting that Canada adopt toward you, and those with your mindset, an equivalent policy to the“ Omar Pact”. Yet you and many millions from your culture worship the author of that document, Omar (PBUH). Do you see the irony in this situation? I believe not. That is why the cesspools you ran away from have failed institutions in the first place. Furthermore a few, like you, do not even have the decency to show any gratitude to their host country, and all what they do is complain about this and about that, and “threaten” to go back. Why don’t you just leave quietly. See if any of the Muslim countries whose praises you sing will allow you in it.

A lot of non-Muslims (Hindus, Sikhs, Christians) are living in Dubai, Kuwait, Bahrain etc. and have thriving jobs or businesses. Their religion has never been a problem to the locals. Don't believe a word of hate-filled A. Kafir. He has an agenda.

There is no place on earth free from problems like racism, crime, inequality etc. Middle East has its share of problems. Jiziya is not one of them.

He used selectively my post and called me a fool (No comment about homosexuality or other issues). He professes to be all-knowing, all-encompassing intellectual.In reality he is a pseudo-intellectual. Any one who is so filled with hate can not be a true intellectual. Someone should ask him if he is a homosexual.

well, that is certainly valid and reasonable ajit-

but it is still a reaction TO- as oppposed to an imaginitive or creative construction OF a purposeful or positive alternative.

non-conformity may be compelling, but at some point we realize our mutual interdependence upon each other, and it fails to be a satisfactory social system.

i could not agree more that it is a misuse of self-identification that leads one to war-

i have been extremely saddened in my life at the alienation of the "other", no matter who that is- by large groups- no matter who they are.

MT- i have to be honest i dont find mr hitchens or mr harris very compelling when it comes to challenging mediocrity-

their reliance on deconstruction without the necessary construction leaves me , well- pretty bored.

i find that if one deconstructs something with any alacrity, on emust have at least some peripheral experience of it-

if i had never challenged my own beliefs and non-beliefs- i would have become a sheeple-
but addressing traditions, blind adherence to cultural impositions-
exploring atheism or anti-atheism in some variety has made my faith an earned and tested one.

one can become complacent in either camp- thiest or a-theist.

also, ive brought up before, what exactly does it mean , conscious decision or birth accident?

does any bias or "contempt" become more humane or reasonable because it is focused on those whose ideology, political affiliation, gender identity, nationality, occupation etc. are deliberately chosen?

or does it remain a form of bigotry to make all-encompassing statements based on general sets or groups?

i believe the latter-

it diinishes, and belittles the entire being of a person to say they deserve contempt for what is held in their thoughts, or heart-

while mr hitchens for example, balks at the invisible celestial dictator accusing him of thought crimes and judging him for those thoughts, he seems to be quite comfortable judging and publicly disrepsecting a large group of people, who he "instantly loses respect for" because they are religious in some way.

i find this hypocritical.

and not really superior to the precepts of mutual repsect, that all religions exhort.

ajit- i really appreciate your balabced remarks.

A. Kafir writes:

"Well I do not feel like being humiliated or paying jaziya. I see that there are 57 countries where these believers are ruling and have control and in all these 57 countries the unbelievers are treated like filth and are humiliated and do have to pay jiziya one way or another."

A. Kafir is dishonest and is known to distort. I have lived in a Muslim country and have traveled extensively throughout the Middle East. I never had to pay any jiziya he refers to.

None of the Muslim countries impose jiziya on non-Muslims. Some don't even have an income tax.

Ajit writes: "When people go to war using their religions, it is not the fault of religion. It is the misuse of identity."

You are a fool and an ignorant fool at that.

Muhammad of Islam sent missives to the rulers around Arabia for them to accept Islam, or face destruction or that they should pay tribute. That is history of Islam. That is Islam by definition. Muhammad said he was commanded by Allah to fight till there was only Islam every where. What misuse of identity are you talking about?

Victoria:

One common thread of those individuals who are either atheists or have renounced their particular faiths is that they have not conformed to the standards set by their religions. Many are homosexuals. Since most world religions do not approve of homosexuality or condemn it the response of the athiest is to denounce religion.

But that may not be the only reason. There may be many other reasons of non-conformity leading to renunciation of religion.

There is always a cause and effect relationship of any phenomenon.

When people go to war using their religions, it is not the fault of religion. It is the misuse of identity. Other identitities leading to war could be language, tribal affiliation (Rwanda comes to mind), sectarian violence (N. Ireland) etc. etc.

Eboo, for starters, a basic difference between faith and ethnicity is that faith is a conscious decision one makes, whereas ethnicity isn't.

The debate brought forth by Hitchens and Harris is a meaningful one - they are forcing people like you/me to discuss faith - and why we adhere to our respective traditions, challenging the practice of mediocre acceptance, and forcing new generations to rationalize their faith, not just accepting the various traditions b/c it was what their parents practiced.

Humanist writes: "The answer: Why does science want to prolong life?
Why doesn't it allow "nature" to work on its own? Why does it want to interfere with nature?"

I have no idea who ever claimed that is what Science wants to do. Science is a "process" and the medical applications of it are to alleviate sickness and pain. A consequence of this has been the prolongation of life, but the entire venture of science has not been and is not to prolong life. Science aims to "understand" nature. A consequence of understanding something appears to be the ability to manipulate and control it. Now the five day weather prediction is pretty good and people are using it effectively to plan their activities. Similary, the ability to know which foods have what effects is causing people to change their eating habits. This is all interfering with "nature"? As one understands more, it does result in abilities to effect change. Whether one should effect that change or not requires understanding of different issues.

Humanist writes: "And faith is not subject to empirical verification. ... it triggers the faith of those believers. One word: MYSTRY."

What is faith? Neuroscientist may disagree that faith cannot be understood. If their hypothesis of "neural correlate" for consciousness and our psychological states is correct that eventually even what people call faith will become subject to empirical verification. The "MYSTRY" might be hiding ignorance more than anything else. Many suspect that it is the lack of ability to deal with ignorance and the ensuing uncertainty that gives rise to faith. When someone has to act, and everything affecting that action is not known and cannot be known then faith MAY be one way of coping. Intellectual and philosophical people may be able to function without faith, but there is an empirical observation by the experienced that there are none without faith in foxholes.

Humanist writes: "If religion gives comfort to the troubled minds who am I (or you) to ridicule the believer? Don't come back to tell us that you want to educate."

If the believers do not kill and blow themselves up and take down building and blow up trains, no one would care. No one really objected when the Jehovah Witnesses disturbed by knocking on the doors, or the missionaries were spreading the gospel around the world. But then some believers literally took the word of one faith that said:

Quran 009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight (kill) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Well I do not feel like being humiliated or paying jaziya. I see that there are 57 countries where these believers are ruling and have control and in all these 57 countries the unbelievers are treated like filth and are humiliated and do have to pay jiziya one way or another. So what should I do? I do not believe that this can be rectified by bombs and bullets. The real cure lies in education. As arif pointed out in an earlier post, unfortunately that means the orange robed peaceful Buddhists get roped in as part of the education.

MR. MARK,

Instead of talking nonsense, could you not have simply kept your mouth shut?

You approvingly repeat what RAJNI writes : "I agree with Anonymous. Muslims like Patel, Malleck, Zakaria are quick to criticize their adopted homelands for anything they do not like ...'.

When did I criticize anything about Canada? There is NOTHING to criticize about Canada. It is the MOST CIVILIZED country in the world -- the exact opposite of Bush's US of A.

Oh! not the PEOPLE of USofA, who are wonderful folks, mostly, bar idiotics immigrants like you who are so self-deprecating that you are ready to basj every other immigrant like yourself -- immigrant to the USofA, I mean! But neocons.

Again, by the way, those who want to see me off to a Muslim land, which is one of my fondest wishes even if I may not like their leaders but love their people: will you guys also ask the Americans who don't like Muslims to leave Muslim lands? Those who are neutral, and even more so those who respect Muslims, can stay -- they are welcome: Ahlan Wa Sahlan.

i am not entirely sure why mr hitchens is so repsected as a thinker-

to form ones worldview at 9 years of age, then intransigently spend ones energies attempting to justify such an immature decision- doesnt speak of a trenchant intellect- but a stubborn insistence on sticking with an inflexible position.

isnt one of his critiques that children are brainwashed inot religious thought, and their youthful decison making processes are inherently corrupted from that influence?

if such a standard is valid, and applied equally- wouldnt it also apply to mr hitchens?

it seems a limited exploration of all the thoughts that have been thunk by all the peoples in the world.

if i only perused and digested philosophies that initially supported my own worldview- with a prejudged and conceived mindset at my approach- i would have missed so much of the richness of what humanity has to offer-

just my humble opinion here-

Hey, IBRAHIM MAHFOUZ.

You should contact the Canadian authorities direct. I doubt that they are reading WAPO ON FAITH Forum, but, even if they do and by misfortune they read your post, they will think that it is not worth even a minute of their time to call a shrink to have you locked up.

i still believe mr patel made some good points.

i think people come in and dont read the post, or read it once and continue to comment on other peoples comments, forgetting the catalyst for the discussion.

sam harris' statemnt,
"religion 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."

could equally be applied to any segment of humanity-

and then we have the opposite examples, like the work itself of mr patel as an interfaith worker in chicago- whose sole mission is inclusiveness and plurality, and encouraging a new generation of dialogue and understanding between our future leaders and teachers.

when i compare the words and actions of mr hitcens and mr harris to the words and actions of mr patel-

as far as contributions of a positive exploration of our humanity, encouraging acceptance, plurality, understanding and compassion-

i find mr patels mission a bit more relevant and potent in its results, and his direct impact upon the lives of young people, in leading them to look to and develop their higher natures as people- to be an extremely valuable and sorely needed activity.

we would all do well to look to his example, and try to impact our own communities in the same spirit.
peace

Casual Observation writes: "Concerned Liberated-

An interesting youtube interview of Arun Ghandi by Wafaa Al-Natheema (10-6-07). In 1987 he came to the USA and became a American citizen in 1995. Still he does NOT consider himself an American as he says he is "stuck" here and says "I'M AMAZED AT HOW IGNORANT AMERICAN PEOPLE REALLY ARE.."

That is merely the off the boat immigrant story. He was 53 years old in 1987 when he comes to USA for whatever reason. The identity of a person at 53 is more or less fixed and no immigrant becomes an "American" overnight or even in 8 years. It takes time. For some it takes a long time. It may not be possible after the age of 50 or so. Life does have a way of narrowing options and people feeling "stuck" somewhere and someplace. And many many foreigners do get surprised at how "ignorant" the Americans are, from what I have been able to understand from that is two things: 1) Americans as a whole are self centered and do not care much about foreign affairs and know very little about other countries and 2) "they" usually come from the well to do and well educated classes and for some reason compare all Americans by that yardstick instead of comparing whole population statistics.

It is more a reflection of USA immigration policies than anything else.

A. Kafir wrote:

"What does eliminating death have to do with truth?"

The answer: Why does science want to prolong life?
Why doesn't it allow "nature" to work on its own? Why does it want to interfere with nature?

Obviously, its ultimate goal is to eliminate death, where it fails. You could say that that is the "truth" in science.

My point was that religion is based on faith. And faith is not subject to empirical verification. Obviously, there are thousands of faiths--each one to be "true" to its adherents.

Science is based on empirical verification. When it can not adequately explain the origin of matter or the origin of the universe, it triggers the faith of those believers. One word: MYSTRY.

If religion gives comfort to the troubled minds who am I (or you) to ridicule the believer? Don't come back to tell us that you want to educate. Most people would come back with a response: "Why do you want to educate us? Go and educate your children.

"The fact that their books are award-winning best sellers just illustrates how filthy our discussion about religion has gotten."

or perhaps it illustrates how defensive the author is when faith is questioned.

publically stating that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, and that i don't believe in spirits and invisible worlds is my right; and only the most twisted logic could consider it 'hate' speech. while the author has every right to expect courtesy and civility, he has no right to expect his views to receive 'respect' as that has to be earned in a free society.

and yes, holding religious institutions and believers accountable for the results of their nonsense is also in order. the perceived 'victimhood' of religious believers (in america) would be laughable if it weren't for the hundreds of millions (billions?) in tax relief the faithful demand and get.

what utter rubbish.

Humanist wrties: "Truth in science is not absolute, because scientific explanations are constantly challenged by new observational evidence. Truth in religion, although regarded as absolute by believers, is based on faith, and the faith gets shaken when scientists come up with an answer not anticipated by some believers."

As you correctly point out that truth in science constantly changes and is driven by "facts" but the truth of "facts" and "truth" itself does not change in science. I do not understand what you mean "although" as if the truth of religion is not absolute. The script of some religions are fixed. I do not know how you can discard the Bible and the story of Jesus and maintain Christianity. How do you throw out Karma and re-incarnation with altering some core parts of buddhism? If Quran is not the word of Allah, how do you retain Islam?

Then Humanist writes:
"If religion fails, science also fails. Science has prolonged life but has failed to eliminate death. It has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to how the matter came about and what the origin of the universe is. Does all this mean we reject science?"

I do not see how this follows from what you said earlier. Why does science fail if religion fails? What does eliminating death have to do with truth? Are you suggesting "Eternal Life" is some how the measure of "Truth"? We may never be able to know how matter really came about or the origin of the Universe. So what? Science lives with that lack of knowledge by saying "We don't know" at present and why should saying "We don't know" make it fail in the future? Perhaps "Eternal Life" is itself a canard spread by religion and not properly understood. Richard Gere's Buddhism is attempting to answer that very differently.

Well said, Robert.

Mr. Patel is uncomfortable with the criticisms Hitchens and Harris make of religion, but that does not mean the criticisms have no merit. While there are many good religious people, that does not mean that religion is good for people or for society. The question of whether or not religion is "good" for us needs to be examined by taking a critical look at its practices and the effects of those practices on the culture.

I'm sure Mr. Patel would advocate critical thinking when it comes to religion--or do logic and effective reasoning have to be checked at the door when one discusses religion?

If every criticism of religion can be equated with hate speech, then we are in trouble, in my view.

In the name of religion, people have gone to war or remained in peace, planted crops or fasted, drunk alcohol or abstained from it, invoked God to rain death upon enemies or brought peace to troubled minds.

Can "prayer really move mountains"? Each student should be asked to pray and then try to move a large boulder. Why do disasters strike specific individuals or communities, and why don't patients always recover despite prayers?

Truth in science is not absolute, because scientific explanations are constantly challenged by new observational evidence. Truth in religion, although regarded as absolute by believers, is based on faith, and the faith gets shaken when scientists come up with an answer not anticipated by some believers.

If religion fails, science also fails. Science has prolonged life but has failed to eliminate death. It has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to how the matter came about and what the origin of the universe is. Does all this mean we reject science?

While it's true that people can be discriminated against because they're religious, Mr. Patel fails to demonstrate that the comments of Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Harris constitute discriminatory behavior. Hitchens' contempt of, and disrespect for, religious people reflects his own distaste for religion; he does not advocate the degradation or intimidation of people who are religious, nor does he incite violence or prejudicial action against such people.

If he were, as Patel proposes, contemptuous of black or Mexican people, simply because they are black or Mexican, then he would correctly be labeled as a racist who offers no basis for productive discourse, and he would quickly vanish from the talk-show circuit. Religions are belief systems; race and ethnicity are not. Subsequently, they are fair game for criticism.

For the same reasons, Harris’ “categorical attack” on religion cannot fairly be labeled as hate speech. Consider his comment about the erosion of American influence due to the supernatural beliefs of most Americans. If he had made the same comment about the beliefs of, say, conservatives, then no one would likely be accusing him of discriminatory or hateful speech. A religion, like a political philosophy, merely constitutes a system of beliefs, regardless of how deeply-held those beliefs may be.

Prominent agnostic and atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins all strongly disapprove of religion, and they all present good reasons for doing so. Mr. Patel should categorically address and refute their complaints if he wishes to defend the beliefs of religious people.

ConcernedLiberated-

An interesting youtube interview of Arun Ghandi by Wafaa Al-Natheema (10-6-07). In 1987 he came to the USA and became a American citizen in 1995. Still he does NOT consider himself an American as he says he is "stuck" here and says "I'M AMAZED AT HOW IGNORANT AMERICAN PEOPLE REALLY ARE.."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2UYsIZUTOTc

There is a difference between being black and being religious; you did choose to be black. It is bad to criticize people for things they were born with and cannot change, such as race, disability, gender...

However, we generally don't call it discrimination when we criticize people for choosing to do negative things like, taking drugs, committing crimes, dropping out of school, appearing on reality television or being religious.

i find the several arguments that state that since religion is a choice, any discrimination against it is somehow acceptable.

HI MR MARK-
thanks for your reasonable response-

i also view wikipedia with a jaded eye as a source of any validity-
however- the definition seems apt- so despite its origins- the definition itself seems worthy enough to use-

i searched bit, forgot why i was searching and just read, then remebered enough to bring one or two snippets back-

"The answer would seem to be hate speech applying to religious groups which causes threat, menace and alarm, and which may be contributory to actual harm."

this is from ekklesia in reference to the hate speech that preceded the rwanda genocide-

"Broadly speaking however, hate speech refers to expression that promotes hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion. This form of expression is often an incitement to violence and "encourages violent activities, tension or hatred between countries, races, ethnic or social groups for political goals or to foster conflict". (http://www.rnw.nl/eralradio/information/html/definitions.htm)."

using these defninitions, i dont think you could disagree that mr hitchens has a tendency to foster conflict.

mostly i find mr hitchens enamored of his own cleverness-

his own crusade against theism doesnt seem so much an actual moorally or ethically driven one as much as an intent to draw attention to his own (self perceieved) intellectual prowess.

he is also subject to this (taken from mr malleck's post)

"But even when an individual tries to attain the greatest possible degree of independence, he will still be swayed by the existing spiritual structures—consciously or unconsciously."

i think mr hitchens is a great example of this-

my own particular ambivalence towards im lies in the fact that he can only take an existing paradigm, and criticze it.(and his derivative writings)

he seems to craft no new or creative ideological construct- that would require real intellectual sweat-

if one cannot create, one criticizes those who do- so i relegate him to the forgettable pile of deriviative critics in history.

i also particularly like this from mr lalecks psot-
"To get back to our original question, is it correct to look upon the religious 'there is' as just another, though different, attempt to reach ever higher levels of abstraction? An attempt to facilitate our understanding of universal connections? After all, the connections themselves are real enough, no matter into what spiritual forms we try to fit them."

as for hate speech, and the intentions of mr hitchens- he does seem to take some childish delight in pressing emotional buttons and drawing attention to himself- but after that rather pointless pursuit- he doesnt have the stamina or imagination to lead one to anyplace new.

i have no personla desire to silnce him one way or the other- he has is own choir he preaches to- let them have each other.

there does come a point where verbal violence, when it encourages bias or discrimination against a group that results in a harrassment-
is a different category, and at some point ones civil rights trump anothers civil liberties.
IMHO
peace

Ethical Behavior Without a Belief in God
Many people feel that ethical and moral behavior must be based on the absolute teachings found with the Christian Bible. Without a belief in the Christian God, the hope of Heaven and the threat of Hell, they believe that an individual will not be motivated to behave decently. This belief was seen in a US military policy in past decades which only allowed persons who believed in a God to achieve conscientious objector status.
Humanists have successfully developed moral and ethical systems which are independent of divine revelation from a deity. They are based upon such beliefs as:
1. Systems of morality and ethics can be developed through mutual agreement much like we develop laws and social customs
2. They can be based upon common needs that humans have for survival, security, personal growth and love
3. Humans are social animals who can make the greatest achievements through mutual cooperation
4. People will willingly follow humanistic codes because they are effective; reasonable; lead to self esteem; are consistent with one's natural feelings of caring, compassion and sympathy; are accepted by others, and do not lead to condemnation or rejection. No system of rewards and punishment are needed to enforce them.

The problem is it is all theoretical. The world's 6B people have a hunger for spirituality. Religions provide systems of reward and punishment which supposedly makes people to social conformity. People here who think that by attacking other peoples' faith they are educating people. An utter non-sense.

ConcernedLiberated-

Here's another view of Gandhi:

JEWS FELL BAPUS GRANDSON

America’s omnipotent Jewish community has forced Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Arun Gandhi, to resign from the institute he founded in the US 17 years ago to spread the message of the Father of the Nation.

His resignation offer follows remarks the grandson made about the Jewish identity and the Holocaust in an online discussion on faith and religion on the website of The Washington Post.

“The Board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-violence has received Mr Arun Gandhi’s offer of resignation as president of our organisation,” the institute said in a statement released through the University of Rochester in New York state, where it is housed since June last year.

“We are scheduling a board meeting with him upon his return from India (this) week,” the statement added.

India is unlikely to say or do anything in defence of Arun even though the huge controversy here revolves around Gandhi and his ideals of non-violence, officials here privately said.

New Delhi cannot afford to even tangentially annoy the American Jewish community because successive Indian governments have relied on this community for at least 15 years to bring Indo-US relations to its present health. The nuclear deal between India and the US would not have got to its present phase of implementation without the active involvement of the American Jewish community in its favour.

Arun’s offer to resign follows several days of grovelling apologies by him, by the moderators of the online discussion on the Post website and defensive statements by University of Rochester president Joel Seligman for having associated with the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-violence.

Hundreds of messages assailing Arun and The Washington Post were posted on the website, most of them clearly by Jews. The powerful American Jewish Committee’s executive director David A. Harris pre-empted any Indian reaction by hinting in a statement that India was being ungrateful for all that his organisation did for New Delhi.

“We are proud at the American Jewish Committee to have played a vital role in nurturing the India-Israel bilateral relationship, as well as strengthening the bonds between American Jews and Indian Americans,” Harris said.

Arun’s original remarks, which triggered the controversy, argued that “Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.”

Recalling his visit to Tel Aviv in 2004, Arun said he spoke to members of the Israeli parliament and asked in Gandhian tones: “Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbours and build a relationship?”

When a storm of protest erupted over these remarks, Arun apologised. “I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people.”

Seligman issued a statement that the apology was inadequate and that he was “deeply disappointed by Arun Gandhi’s recent opinion piece... which seem(s) fundamentally inconsistent with the core values of the University of Rochester.”

The Post website’s moderators said: “We regret the initial posting, and we apologise for the episode”, begging readers for “a measure of forbearance and tolerance as the site endeavours to conduct a civil and illuminating conversation.”

Local newspapers demanded Arun’s resignation and asked the University of Rochester to sever ties with the M.K.Gandhi Institute for Non-violence. The AJC called Arun’s comments “reprehensible” and said “Mr Gandhi has fallen short in his subsequent apology.”

In addition to heading the Institute, Arun is a regular participant in “Renaissance Weekend” deliberations with former US President Bill Clinton and other Rhodes Scholars.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080122/jsp/nation/story_8810462.jsp

Types of Humanism:
In the religious arena, many words have a number of different meanings. Some examples are: Christian, cults, Humanist, pagan, Satanist, Witch and Witchcraft. The terms Humanism and Humanist are essentially meaningless when used by themselves; their meanings only become clear when preceded by an adjective, as in:
bullet Christian Humanism: a philosophy based on Christian beliefs about the nature of God, and which advocate people's fulfillment by personal effort.
bullet Cultural Humanism: A concept that knowledge can be obtained through rational thought and experimentation. It has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome. It developed into the scientific method and is the major underpinning of all sciences today.
bullet Literary Humanism: pursuit of the humanities (languages, literature, philosophy, history, etc.)
bullet Modern Humanism: a generic term encompassing both Religious and Secular Humanism.
bullet Philosophical Humanism is a philosophy centered upon the needs and interests of people.
bullet Renaissance Humanism: A movement starting at the end of the Middle Ages which renewed an interest in classical studies and promoted the concept that truth could be discovered by human effort.
bullet Religious Humanism is similar to secular humanism, except that it is practiced in a religious setting with fellowship and rituals, as in Ethical Culture Societies, congregations associated with the Society for Humanistic Judaism and groups affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association.
bullet Secular Humanism a non-religiously based philosophy promoting humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought movement of the 19th Century.

An update on Ghandi's anti-Jewish commentary here recently-

From today's news:

"Gandhi's grandson quits N.Y. peace center
By Ben Dobbin

Associated Press

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A grandson of Mohandas Gandhi has resigned from a peace institute after drawing condemnation for saying in an online forum that Israel and Jews "are the biggest players" in a global culture of violence.
Arun Gandhi, the fifth grandson of the revered pacifist, said yesterday the board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, based at the University of Rochester, had accepted his offer a day earlier to step down as president.

Gandhi cofounded the institute with his wife, Sunanda.

He was on a panel of scholars, writers and clergy who discuss a new topic weekly on the Washington Post's "On Faith" page and his comments, posted Jan. 7, drew a torrent of criticism.

He wrote that Jewish identity "has been locked into the Holocaust experience - a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of [how] a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.

"The Holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. . . . The world did feel sorry for the episode, but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger."

Describing Israel as "a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs," Gandhi asked whether it would "not be better to befriend those who hate you?"

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity," he added.

Gandhi later apologized "for my poorly worded post," saying he should not have implied that Israeli government policies reflected the views of all Jewish people.

"I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends," he wrote in a follow-up.

The school declined immediate comment on the controversy, saying the institute's board "is separate from the university."

Mohammed Malleck:
I have a quick and sure way to make you and your tribe go back to the hellhole you crawled away from. We suggest to Canada to apply the "Omar Pact" that Muslims throughout history had applied to non-Muslims living among them.

"Omar Pact
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Omar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
1. We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
2. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
4. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
5. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
7.We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
8.We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
10.We shall not sell fermented drinks.
11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
13. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
14.We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
15.We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
16.We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Omar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Omar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]

Dear Chris Ev -

Damn! I wish I had written that!

RAJNI writes:
"I agree with Anonymous. Muslims like Patel, Malleck, Zakaria are quick to criticize their adopted homelands for anything they do not like but I never see them speaking out against daily massacres carried out in the name of the Islam."

I disagree strongly. I often hear Muslims speaking out against such massacres, just as I often hear Xians speaking out against the atrocities committed by the bush administration.

I believe there's a much-simpler explanation for the tenor of columns like this particular one by Mr Patel, and that is that the religious, in general, are not used to taking their thoughts into a public forum that is not pre-disposed toward sympathy for their views. Mr Patel could offer these thoughts in the safety of almost any religious gathering and he would be treated to a sea of nodding heads and like-minded acceptance that his words were the gospel truth.

But On Faith isn't necessarily a fantasy-friendly environment, nor do the posters here suffer fools and their whole-cloth arguments lightly. That's not going to change any time soon.

Mr Patel and his fellow religionists would do well to consider that they are in a very real sense entering terra incognito when the elect to post on this blog, and that their religious bromides are not going to garner universal sympathy when sent naked into a forum populated by reasonable and intelligent people.

Armed with the false sense of authority that comes with belief in the supernatural, the religious have never been known to pull their punches. They should expect no less now that the non-religious are pushing back with the weapons at their disposal: skepticism, logic and knowledge.

It is very accurate to state that the West or any other culture can be as violent as Islam.

But the West's is violence driven by recognizable causes and goals including greed, pride, arrogance and very occasionally, very "lofty" ideals.

Islam's violence is a God-driven violence. It is irrational, incomprehensoble, goalless except to please some sky idol named Allah we know nothing about. It is therefore far more terrifying.

Muhammad Malleck says "Maybe you can help quicken my going back to Tunisia? I might be getting there without your help anyway, but I had hoped that it might have materialised in July last, but it has been delayed. I'll keep you and any intereted reader of WAPO posted, although I doubt that anybody would be as dumb as you to be keen to be informed."

What a wonderful idea!! Please do not leave your wives, ex-wives, concubines, children, grandchildren behind. If every Muslim living in the West made teh same right decision as Muhammad Malleck the world would be a wonderful place.

Muhammad, I have yet to read any meaningful information from you. Only mis-information.

Hello, again Chris E. Thanks for your explication of facts/absolute truth. It is extremely clear. I’d like all clergy to include it in their daily devotions and practice its “truths” when they communicate with each other and their flocks. Until that time comes, I want people to be aware that clergy uses the terms “true,” “truth” “truthful” and also “tradition” not to enlighten, but to obfuscate.

I agree with Anonymous. Muslims like Patel, Malleck, Zakaria are quick to criticize their adopted homelands for anything they do not like but I never see them speaking out against daily massacres carried out in the name of the Islam.

Even the creation and existence of about 50 Islamic states is a matter of shame because they openly discrminate against non-Muslims. If Muslims are so proud of these nations, they should move there and not come to Western nations and try to blow people up here.

Note: 10 Pakistanis arrested for plotting to carry out suicide attacks on Barcelona's trains.

Jihadist,

I liked your post. The idea of race is in serious need of deflawing!

It is the Muslims who threaten and kill people who "insulted" their religion. Not the other way around. So people criticizing Muslims are wise to remain anonymous. While bigots like M. Malleck can print their name, addr, phone no etc and have nothing to worry about.

Look at case of Arun Gandhi, recently fired over publishing anti-Jewish comments like "Jews are the most vioent people". No Jew threatened him physically. He is free to move around.

Look at Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rushdie and many more already buried like Van Gogh.

ANONYMOUS at 10:49 a.m.

Maybe you can help quicken my going back to Tunisia?

I might be getting there without your help anyway, but I had hoped that it might have materialised in July last, but it has been delayed.

I'll keep you and any intereted reader of WAPO posted, although I doubt that anybody would be as dumb as you to be keen to be informed.

E Favorite,

I try to be clear and consistent in my use of terms, though I'm sure I occasionally fall short. To me, facts are observables, i.e. it's overcast here, the water is boiling, etc. If there's such a thing as absolute objective truth, facts have it. Then there are explanations, which generalize the circumstances in which facts arise, and articulate governing principles that can be applied to other circumstances within the scope of the generalization. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation is an explanation. It is with respect to explanations that I have been using the word "true". However, explanations are contingent on the facts, and since facts are always accumulating, explanations can never account for them all. Therefore "truth", as I use it, cannot be absolute, it is a matter of degree. The scientific method, since it has, as a founding principle, comportment with the facts, advances "in the direction of truth."

Religion is different. Like science, religion contains explanations, but there is no method to move religious explanations in the direction of truth. Instead, religions assert their explanations AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH. This is bad for a number of reasons. It is a lie about the NATURE of truth. It substitutes itself for the natural world as the SOURCE of truth. And it arrests the progress of explanation that is at the core of scientific inquiry. To my statement that "Religion is different - it claims truth where there is none," A. Kafir responded "How do you know?" That's a good question. How does anyone know? What is the process by which legitimate knowledge is obtained? Is it obtained by pouring over whatever ancient holy book was preserved by your ancestors? Is that how? Or is it by recongizing the primacy of nature when it comes to truth, and pouring over natural phenomena looking for explanatory principles. For me the choice is clear.

Of course, we all experience consciousness in a way that is utterly personal and not within the realm of peer-reviewable scientific criticism. Still, I think the same principle applies - do we learn about our conscious experience by pouring over books about salvation, heaven and hell, sin, God, reincarnation, karma, etc, or do we learn about our conscious experience by paying attention to it, looking for explanatory principles. That is why I like the contemplative traditions of Asia - at their core, brushing away the mumbo jumbo, they are scientific. But the limitations of the scientific method still apply - the "truths" one finds are still contingent.

So after all this I come to a general principle of "deflawing":

1) Respect direct observation as the provider of facts and the basis of truth;

2) The legitimacy of "truths" derived from observation depends on the time and effort spent actually paying attention to the thing being observed; and

3) Truth, by its nature CANNOT be absolute. This is the RED FLAG, indicating that things have GONE AWRY!

What do you think, CCNL?

TO NEAL OBSTAT AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

You wrote, "Thomas Baum,
Thanks for clarifying that God is real. I am always impressed by assertions substituting for evidence or arguments."

Glad to hear that you are impressed, but I am not here to impress anyone.

I cannot give you or anyone else evidence that God is Real but God gave evidence to me in His Way that He is real.

I am just a messenger but one day all will know that God is Real and a lot of people that seem to know His Name are going to be quite surprised to find out that knowing His Name is about the only thing that they know about Him.

I have met God, each Member of the Trinity, and I have also met satan.

This is either true or not, time will tell.

If people glance thru these postings, it should be obvious that so many sound like a bunch of children, childish children at that, bickering over so many irrelevant things.

Some of which are: you don't believe what I believe so I am better than you, hogwash; I am smarter than you so I am right and you are wrong, bull; I am much more learned than you so follow my beliefs and/or non-beliefs because I am a free-thinker, what a crock.

The list could go on but I am just trying to get a point across.

I used to believe in God until I met God and guess what, God is not the egomaniac that so many seem to think that He is.

God is Love, Pure Love and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know since God created not only each and every one of us but also all of creation or whatever you or anyone else wishes to call it.

Lots of people are going to try and hide behind their religion, their beliefs, their knowing God's Name, whatever they try and hide behind but there is no place to hide.

It is not about religion, it is not about spirituality, it is not about believing in God or not believing in God, but it is about how we treat our brothers and sisters which happens to be humanity.

Has anyone else noticed that some people really seem to get off on feeling superior to others by looking down on them for whatever reason; such as their beliefs or non- beliefs, their intellectual prowess, their so-called learnedness in whatever discipline and the list could go on but I hope you get the point that I am trying to get across.

By the way, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

God has a Plan and and His Plan is for all of His people, humanity, to be in The Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready, night is coming, see you all, humanity, in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

? for all Muslims

Why do Muslims want to flee to the West and not to some Muslim country that has sharia laws in place? If islam is so wonderful should you not be living in Muslim countries?

Chris Everett: "I'd love a Buddhism without reincarnation and karma (I think it exists, maybe in Zen). I'd love a Christianity that treats Jesus as a philosopher."

Me too, and getting rid of all this "belief," "faith" and "worship" nonsense.

A. Kafir, Ibrahim Mahfouz, Arif, and Hirsi Ali need to go and seen their psychiatrists. It is possible that they will be diagnosed with EXCESSIVE, COMPULSIVE, BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS.

Muhamamd Malleck

Even the writers of the Koran chose to remain anonymous. Yet for you their fabrications are the divine truth.

Eboo Patel: you’ve certainly been thoroughly chastised for comparing criticism of religion to racism. My fear is that such harsh criticism of your beliefs will only make your faith stronger. I’ve seen that reaction quite a lot among religious people.

My hope is that this experience will encourage you to change your beliefs on this subject and to carefully consider why you’re threatened by atheists expressing their views.

ANONYMOUS AT 9:26 a.m.

What hatred from somebody who does not even have the courage to explicitly put his name to opinions he posts. Others can thus read and see his character is benign or evil, but there is a self-denunciation in not enabling others to place a name on the source of the posting.

Here is how religion becomes evil.
Muhammad makes his idol Allah say in the Koran.

" Beat your wives if they disobey you."

So far so good. After all Muhammad lived in 7th century Arabia and was of that mindset.

21st century.

Muslims still believe that the idol that Muhammad created and called Allah said that. And they refuse to admit that wife beating is criminal. And they refuse to pass laws banning violence against women. Furthermore they teach their children from the evil book they call the Koran. And the injustice continues.

A. Kafir,

You say "I can think of many religious ideas that are ambiguous and may offer some truths. Zen Koan meditation, Indian Raj Yoga Meditation, Buddhist meditative chanting, etc..."

I agree. But these are practices, not purported "truths". They fall under the category of religious TRADITION, which I have said often contains value. But there's a difference between that and superstition, which I take to be the essence of religion. If I may bring up CCNL; he promotes the notion of "deflawing". I'm not sure exactly what he means, but to me it means the removal of superstition, which removes incentives for irrational, destructive behavior, and removes the necessity to insulate oneself against the outside world. For example, I see Unitarianism as the most "deflawed" Christianity. Chemistry is a "deflawed" alchemy. Astronomy is a "deflawed" astrology. I'm particularly fond of meditation, and in my life I have gone through several phases of regular meditation, but for me it isn't the least bit religious. It's time spent paying attention to the phenomenon of conscious awareness. As a practice, it strengthens the ability to pay attention, which is a useful skill in almost any circumstance. It also makes clear, through direct experience, that "substance" and "identity" are mutually exclusive. Everything of which one can be aware, no matter how "deep", exists "out there" in the realm of that which is perceived, not in the realm of the perceiving entity. And so on.

I don't think Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins or Dennett would disagree. In fact, Harris' book "The End of Faith" explicitly endorses Buddhism as the type of "religious" inquiry that can be of value, and I have heard Dennett speak (lukewarmly) of the potential value of meditation.

To the extent that spiritual practices and metaphors are edifying, that is all the more reason to get them out of the grip of religion. I'd love a Buddhism without reincarnation and karma (I think it exists, maybe in Zen). I'd love a Christianity that treats Jesus as a philosopher. It would be great if everyone had a "religious" stance that drew from diverse sources - Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Shakespeare, etc.

The deity who proclaims himself in the Koran is lacking in knowledge of history, does not really have a clue about natural world, has no insight into the human psyche, can't express himself syntactically. And he has the ethics of a sadistic psychopath.

Yet Muslims like Eboo Patel must call him wise and knowledgeable, flatter his poor attempt at rhetorical composition, praise his 'ethics'.

Muslims say that Allah is transcendent and without likeness or form, but anyone who is not Muslim can see that he is just a projection of Mohammed's own psyche.

It reminds me of the story -- the Emperor's New Clothes. Hitchens and Harris are peeling the clothes off.

People like Hitchens hate religion just as doctors hate cancer. Both religion and cancer destroy humans and society. Patel should look no further than his Islam and study the mess that Muslim countries are in.

Hi, Chris Everett – I see you’ve already received some guidance on use of the word “Truth.” I think safer words for you to use are “facts,” “factual,” and “historical or scientific evidence.”

This is because “truth” has been co-opted (in my opinion) by religionists who use it in a broader and ultimately misleading sense to mean “thinking which has great value” or “ideas with universal appeal.” For instance, a clergy person could state with great authority that “the bible contains many important truths” or “Exodus is a truth story” without concern that listeners are hearing “facts” and “true story” when what the preacher means is “valuable lessons” and “myth with universal human application.”

It’s a preacher’s trick that is so second nature, I’m not sure they even know they’re doing it. I’ve seen it numerous times here in “on faith” essays and began noticing it in church when I was making my journey to atheism.

Mohummad Malleck

Muslims are today the most religious of people and also the most bigoted.

Take for instance the haj. Muslims despite knowing that non-Muslims are not allowed into Mecca and Medina do the hajj. had they had any respect for non-Muslims they would have refused to do the hajj until the Saudi allowed churches and synagogues to be built in Mecca and Medina.

Muslims via the Koran have also the most rigid caste system: the lower caste in Islam is women who can, because of the consent given by the Arabic idol Allah, be beaten up.

Muhammad was s lave owner and trader.

It was a secularist, Lincoln who first abolished slavery.

The fact is that whether you consider it hate speech or not( and to use your own frame of reference, "Who died and made you God?")
my considered opinion of people that are waiting for some magical creature to save them is that they ARE morons.
To me that is a simple statement of fact.
Hate does not come in to it.
I don't hate the religious, I pity them the same way I would anyone else with a serious cognitive disability.
Perhaps someday people like you will learn to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for what goes on in your lives.
But I doubt it.

"religion 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."

Sam Harris pr anybody else could not have said it better.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the founder of American Atheist and is the one responsible for removing prayer from America's school. She was kidnapped together with her other atheist Son and adopted daughter and all were killed by her atheist employees in her American Atheist organization.

Her other son Bill Murray (converted from atheism to Christianity) spoke critically of his mother after her disappearance:

"My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

If you like to read real life story that's as gruesome as texas chainsaw massacre then read her biography.

And it's not over yet with Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her atheist son and adopted daughter. After being massacred, they still have to see and taste what Jesus had said : "Fear Him, and I say it again, FEAR HIM."

I quote: "Being contemptuous of anyone is boorish at best, and Christopher Hitchens is contemptuous of all religionists, by his own admission. What a Maroon!"

Need I say it?

THOPAINE,

You write: "Religion and religious people have no legitimate claim to my respect;likewise, religion and religious people have no beef if I find them contemptuous."

Far from being contemptuous, religious people honour their brethren and are quite patient at trying to explain.

Consider the following arguments among the scientists Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac and Werner Heisenberg, lifted from Heisenberg's essay on Science and Religion
(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/heisenberg07/heisenberg07_index.html):

" Still, religion is rather a different matter. I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far.

"That is why I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as 'objective' and 'subjective' are, a great liberation of thought. The whole thing started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch as two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motion. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.
"In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. We can still use the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, we can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we can say nothing about the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of choice. Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak about the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order."
"If you distinguish so sharply between the languages of religion, science, and art," I asked, "what meaning do you attach to such apodictic statements as 'There is a living God' or 'There is an immortal soul'? What is the meaning of 'there is' in this type of language? Science, like Dirac, objects to such formulations. Let me illustrate the epistemological side of the problem by means of the following analogy:
"Mathematicians, as everyone knows, work with an imaginary unit, the square root of –1, called i. We know that i does not figure among the natural numbers. Nevertheless, important branches of mathematics, for instance the theory of analytical functions, are based on this imaginary unit, that is, on the fact that -1 exists after all. Would you agree that the statement 'There is a -1' means nothing else than 'There are important mathematical relations that are most simply represented by the introduction of the -1 concept'? And yet these relations would exist even without it. That is precisely why this type of mathematics is so useful even in science and technology. What is decisive, for instance, in the theory of functions, is the existence of important mathematical laws governing the behavior of pairs of continuous variables. These relations are rendered more comprehensible by the introduction of the abstract concept of -1, although that concept is not basically needed for our understanding, and although it has no counterpart among the natural numbers. An equally abstract concept is that of infinity, which also plays a very important role in modern mathematics. It, too, has no correlate, and moreover raises grave problems. In short, mathematics introduces ever higher stages of abstraction that help us attain a coherent grasp of ever wider realms. To get back to our original question, is it correct to look upon the religious 'there is' as just another, though different, attempt to reach ever higher levels of abstraction? An attempt to facilitate our understanding of universal connections? After all, the connections themselves are real enough, no matter into what spiritual forms we try to fit them."
"With respect to the epistemological side of the problem, your comparison may pass," Bohr replied. "But in other respects it is quite inadequate. In mathematics we can take our inner distance from the content of our statements. In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we can play or not play as we choose. Religion, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at least indirectly, our very existence. We cannot just look at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to society. Even if religion arose as the spiritual structure of a particular human society, it is arguable whether it has remained the strongest social molding force through history, or whether society, once formed, develops new spiritual structures and adapts them to its particular level of knowledge. Nowadays, the individual seems to be able to choose the spiritual framework of his thoughts and actions quite freely, and this freedom reflects the fact that the boundaries between the various cultures and societies are beginning to become more fluid. But even when an individual tries to attain the greatest possible degree of independence, he will still be swayed by the existing spiritual structures—consciously or unconsciously. For he, too, must be able to speak of life and death and the human condition to other members of the society in which he's chosen to live; he must educate his children according to the norms of that society, fit into its life. Epistemological sophistries cannot possibly help him attain these ends. Here, too, the relationship between critical thought about the spiritual content of a given religion and action based on the deliberate acceptance of that content is complementary. And such acceptance, if consciously arrived at, fills the individual with strength of purpose, helps him to overcome doubts and, if he has to suffer, provides him with the kind of solace that only a sense of being sheltered under an all-embracing roof can grant. In that sense, religion helps to make social life more harmonious; its most important task is to remind us, in the language of pictures and parables, of the wider framework within which our life is set."

I invite you to read the whole essay at the link provided. Other parts of the essay that I have not quoted address the question of free will, both from a scientific and a religious viewpoint.

Wesley wrote about how non-believers have a 'sense of superiority' while he lives in a superior world of godilicious goodness.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet ...

Wes, you also stated that non-believers are lonely and self-centered. Do you have any evidence to back that assertion or did you just pull it out of thin air? Please provide some references.

A Kuhn,

Thanks. I saw that interview too. In other interviews Hitchens gave, in including in the British media, he stated not only is he anti-theist, but anti-religious people too. He is quite consistent on that.

As for "love the sinner but hate the sin", having read On Faith for a while, I see that many of the words, terms and their variations used by atheists come from Christianity– e.g. “truth”, “love the believer, hate the belief” etc. to discuss on faith.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Pam,

Mr. Hitchens thinking the world would be a better place without religion is a wee naïve methinks. There will still be disputes due to nationalism, ethnicity, factions and region over power and over resources. The end of belief in God and organised religion does not mean human nature will be.

Armed conflicts is always in third world countries from Latin America to Africa to Asia, even among co-religionists and same ethnic groups. I do think better standards of living, more equitable political, economic and social access and opportunities for people regardless of race and religion will minimise or put and end to conflicts.

I would not worry too much about the posts by Spiderman2, Canyon Shearer, Thomas Baum etc who haunt these forums. What they say remain here and can be largely ignored. Some do say we will go to hell in not accepting a certain way of salvation through a certain person. But that should not bother us at all. In fact, I do read all their posts to understand where they are coming from and why.

People who are heads of religious organisations are of more interest to me in their public statements. I take what the Pope/Vatican, Pat Robertson, Ayatollahs, Muftis etc say more seriously than what lay believers say. After all, some lay believers do take their cues from their religious leaders on what to think, say and do.

Likewise, I take authors who write on religion and beliefs, including secular or atheists authors seriously. What they say also tend to be quoted by their likeminded fans too. For example, Hitchens saying “Religion poisons everything is quoted extensively in On Faith threads by some atheists. Never mind it is a bumper sticker statement which is over-stated.

I am not partial to over-statements by both believers and atheists.

--------------------------------------------------

Shelley,

The argument between believers and atheists about God did not start in On Faith. Hitchens is not the first fellow to say there is no God. Among others, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley to name a few had.

I’m not against atheists saying there is no God nor do I mind atheists repeating what Hitchens said - “religion poisons everything” so many times in On Faith threads. I am against generalisations and stereotypings of people and their beliefs or non-beliefs.

There are many types of atheists too – secular humanists, agnostics, freethinkers, spiritual atheists etc. I am aware from reading On Faith that atheists do take exceptions to generalisations and labelling of them too. The labelling “militant” atheist do upset some.

And yes, I like Bertrand Russell. What he said in his book, “Why I Am Not a Christian” made me think about aspects of faith that is “institutionalised” by “organised” religion as beliefs and poisoned faith as spiritualism.

--------------------------------------------------

Gimme a Break

Like you said, one has no choice and cannot change one’s race/colour/ethnicity in one’s life. Ever asked African-Americans on those who think and act “white”?

Ever ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie how one can be “westernised” in mind and spirit, intellectually and culturally in spite of one’s race/colour/ethnicity? Ever heard of and seen westernised oriental gentlemen and ladies?

Becoming as French as a Parisian, or as American as a New Yorker is possible for a Japanese in Tokyo or a Brazilian in Rio de Janeiro in spite of religion, race and citizenship. I have seen Filipino Catholics more devout than Italian and Spanish Catholics.

And there are American atheists more “atheistic” and “anti-theistic” than Vietnamese atheists born of atheist parents in the sense that they don’t make it a mission to declare all theists are delusionists and religion poisons everything etc.

Perhaps it would seen unbelievable that Mr. Eboo Patel, an adherent of a faith you stated is responsible for more discrimination and repression of non-Muslims, to cry wolf when others only question his faith. But it was not by him, and he, as a American, have the right to practice his belief and say what he wants in total freedom as much as Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes and Christopher Hitchens.

How can you be certain that Christians don’t discriminate and repress their own fellow Christians due to being in different churches, denominations and sects? Or even due to being of a different race or ethnicity? I take it that you are not an African-American or a Hispanic-American.

--------------------------------------------------

Chris Everett,

I am not too sure that religion is due to an exploited vulnerability of childhood, trauma, desperation etc. Religion or faith do overcome fears and desperation for many people.

As for what you stated, the fundamental issue being truth, the truth of the matter is that, truth is like that Akira Kurosawa movie, “Rashomon”. One incident, many different versions from our own perspective and self-interest. Truth is very subjective. Or we won’t have courts, judges and juries to determine impartially and objectively what is the “truth” in hearing and weighing all versions from all involved from all angles.

It is not so much religion circumventing “truth” as much as believers formulating religious tenets, circumventing religious tenets and manipulating religious tenets throughout history as “truths” that suits them, especially for political ends.

As for race having no “truth” value, we will have to ask, say, an African American woman on what she thinks of that. We will have to ask people in Africa and Asia colonised by western power who have seen signs in western only clubs stating, “No dogs or Chinese allowed” or “No Indians allowed” etc.

We only need to go to Nairobi or New Delhi or Bangkok to see how westerners have their own enclaves and socialised among themselves. Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Indonesians, Indians do the same in New York, London, Paris. Race matters as a cultural grouping of common heritage of people until they are mainstreamed into the larger society or want to mixed with and make friends the locals even if they are expats.

Perhaps it is noble for Mr. Hitchens to defend “truth” by calling religion “superstition”. Why not the word “advocate” for the truth? The truth as Hitchens sees it, is from a particular perspective, reality and experience. Believers have another reality based on their experience and perspective of another “truth” - what their beliefs and faith means for them, spiritually and socially.

Mr. Hitchens out there in the arena, giving it his all, has become a fanatic as defined by George Santayana – one who redoubles his effort once he forgot his purpose. He lost it when he says he is an anti-theist, just as I would if I call myself anti-atheist.

Thanks and best regards
“J”

Sir;
Please do not quote Wikipedia as authoritative.That definition is a hodge podge of input from various people who may or may not know what they are talking about.The fact that you did no tse one of the many authoritative sources available to journalists is telling.

Also,Please make a distinction between offensive and disrespectful.Religion and religious people have no legitimate claim to my respect;likewise, religion and religious people have no beef if I find them contemptuous.

So many ppl defend hitchens here, there was another blog on this on faith post which ended by apology of the editors of washington post regarding a critique of zionism someone said u cant choose ur race and creed so ideology can b questioned what were the responses of a critique on zionism. Talking about tolerance and then supporting the ousting of a professor just because he criticized israeli ideology which started the so called blood process[peace process] in the middle east. Why didnt the same danish newspaper print a critique article on jesus christ sometime b4 the famous danish cartoons episode. Nobody is terrified, a liar hirsi ali who said she suffered genital mutilation in somalia rape in saudi arabia recently was found out that she came from a much well to do family who live in kenya and actually lied to get asylum in holland. Holland kicked her out american enterprise institute gave her the job for what she stood for. Charlie hebdo jyllands posten newspaper were awarded honours for their stand on freedom of speech[ excluding jewish hate speech off course]taslima will get more than an honour probably a long-term visa[ more important for her] just like the knighthood of rushdie the person who committed teddy bear blasphemy is at her home in england nobody is terrified they will go on bashing islam calling themselves guardians of the gates of vienna and honored for their insults against islam whereas a person in britain writes on a piece of paper zionism is evil will be extradited to austria and get to spent 3 years in jail, challenging power is heroism.

So many ppl defend hitchens here, there was another blog on this on faith post which ended by apology of the editors of washington post regarding a critique of zionism someone said u cant choose ur race and creed so ideology can b questioned what were the responses of a critique on zionism. Talking about tolerance and then supporting the ousting of a professor just because he criticized israeli ideology which started the so called blood process[peace process] in the middle east. Why didnt the same danish newspaper print a critique article on jesus christ sometime b4 the famous danish cartoons episode. Nobody is terrified they will go on bashing islam calling themselves guardians of the gates of vienna and honored for their insults against islam whereas a person in britain writes on a piece of paper zionism is evil will be extradited to austria and get to spent 3 years in jail, challenging power is heroism.

Race purity can only be maintained through sexual purity. Same race, same sex is how Adam came into being. Clerical authority informed Berkowitz he could only atone for the sin of outmarriage by murdering ALL of Delilah's tribe.

you have written a thoughtful and compelling set of questions, some but not all of the facts and you have presented a framework or a backbone upon which more can be aded because when you start with truth you can build... but first i think i have 2 understand just what the truth means...is the truth the fact that there are people in all religions in all walks of life...who 4 what ever reason will attack the primises of another just because it is not thier own.. whether that is because of fear, or pride, or the need 4 money or power or possibly even sex can play a role in the postering and pretending that we all do. ...then i think there are people who will just take the opposite of any argument or question just because .... i have been that person at times in my life..... but i guess the real question is why should it matter to me what somebody else thinks or believes if we are able 2 interact with each other on some positive level whether that be in business, pleasure, scientific advancess... or just pleasant conversation or debate.. if eye have the right to my opinion ...maybe that right would have 2 given 2 others if expected 2 have it myself... in the final analasys if there is room to interact on a postive level why should people look at what can't be done instead of what can be....unless they have some form of mental illness that makes them want to cause conflict and dissintion when it would be easier and more productive 4 everyone 2 do the other... we all have choices....please choose wisely... but i'm just an artist not a great theologeon or statesman....

I should have added to my brief post below that
the atheist books are on the bestseller lists because people everywhere are reading them and enlightening themselves about the silliness of supernatural religious thinking,which most of us are getting so heartily sick off,and out growing.People are becoming too educated to believe the cultural myths that have been pushed down our throats for too long. I think a paradigm shift is happening right now.We're moving towards non belief,and away from superstition.We've seen the damage religious thinking can do. Remember remember the eleventh of September.2001.

Thomas Baum,
Thanks for clarifying that God is real. I am always impressed by assertions substituting for evidence or arguments.

Referring to the atheist books being on the bestseller list Patel says;

"The fact that their books are award-winning best sellers just illustrates how filthy our discussion about religion has gotten".

Love that word filthy don't they,those believers in fairies and gods and goblins and all kinds of other supernatural nonsense. Filthy.Whow,what a word.
What a disgusting word to use about open discussion.
It's what Hitler would say.

Chris Everett writes: "Religion is different - it claims truth where there is none."

How do you know? Richard Gere's talking about his atheistic Religion claims some "truths" that are not susceptible to the sharp black/white true/false categorizations. I can think of many religious ideas that are ambiguous and may offer some truths. Zen Koan meditation, Indian Raj Yoga Meditation, Buddhist meditative chanting, etc, are all religious in origin, and all demonstratively affect human physiology and psychology and hence offer some "truths". There are certain aspects of Christianity that are certainly very laudable, as there are aspects of Judaism that have served the jews very well over the centuries.

Hitchens and Harris are against the pixie in the sky thesis of religion and not religious ideas across the board. You seem to want an absolute in an area that may not be susceptible to crisp logic.

Chris Everett;

you wrote this earlier.I thought I'd revive it so that I could say wow!
Its wonderful.The passion.The clarity! Way to make sense Chris.
Read this people.

"Religion is superstition. It corrupts the mind. It corrodes the soul. It blinds the believer to nature and replaces it with a farcical narrative of idiocy and intolerance. It steals the inherent dignity of man and claims it as its own, leaving only the basest remnants for man himself. It insinuates itself into every facet of existence. It shifts social and political power towards the most craven and despicable segment of the population. It diverts wealth, labor and goodwill towards vain and useless ends. It wages war against every form of progress. It wages war even against every other idiotic narrative. It is poison".

I've decided to be persnickety and emphasize that the difference between race and religion is NOT that religion is chosen. First of all, an argument can be made that religion is due to an exploited vulnerability - childhood, trauma, desparation, etc. But that's beside the point because the issue of choice doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

The fundamental issue is TRUTH. As I said in and earlier post, religion circumvents the only proven method of generating truth - comportment with evidence - in favor of hand-me-down wives' tales (see, J, I'm still sexist!). Race has NO TRUTH VALUE! It may make a physical difference sometimes (e.g. skin cancer), it may impact personal asthetic judgements (TUTTI FRUTTI BOOTY!), but it has no inherent MEANING - it just is. Religion is different - it claims truth where there is none. In my mind, that is an ABOMINATION! In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of a better definition of abomination than "that which denies truth." So, it is therefore inherently NOBLE to for people like Hitchens to defend truth by calling religion by its name: SUPERSTITION. I agree, Mr. Hitchens is something of a boor. But as Teddy Roosevelt said (paraphrasing), at least he is out there in the arena, giving it his all, win or lose.

Jihad;

You like Bertrand Russell,me too.
He wrote the following,

"There is an idea-that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion.
It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked.
You find this curious fact,that the more intense has been the religion of any period,and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief,the greater has been the cruelty,and the worse has been the
state of affairs.
In the so-called ages of faith,when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness,there was the inquisition,with its tortures;there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches,and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling,every improvement in the criminal law,every step toward the diminution of war,
every step towards better treatment of the coloured races,
or every mitigation of slavery,every moral progress that there has been in the world,has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion,as organized in its churches,has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world"

Bertrand Russell."Why I Am Not A Christian".

What you're missing, Mr. Patel, is that people have no choice but to be black, or mexican, or gay, you can not eqaute that with beliefe in god, which is a wholly personal choice. Though greatly influenced by parental idoctrination and social pressure to conform. We are free people, most of us addults, and nowhere does it say that we have to respect the beliefs or decisions of anyone else, all we have to do is respect and defend their right to have them.

I feel sorry that we, the readers of WaPo are subjected to writings such those of Eboo which are completely illogical. On top of that this guy is given space on a forum where readers can blog and he is too afraid to engage in a dialogue with anyone. Sorry for the rude words, but this guy is intellectually dishonest and too afraid to defend criticism, the likes of Harris and Hitchens never flinch from.

The reason the analogy of race/color is not applicable here is that it is something a person is born with and he or she has no choice in this matter. On top of that you cannot change your race/color/ethnicity in your life. As opposed to that religious belief is a matter of choice for an adult. Religious belief in itself can be salutory but irrational belief such as the one tat Eboo professes is essentially intelluctual dishonesty on part of a learned person like Eboo. But may be this dishonesty is not intentional, rather it is a product of an illogical mind. It is unbelievable that a believer of Islam, which has been responsible for more discrimanation and repression of non-muslims, is crying wolf when others only question his faith while letting him have all the freedom to practice his belief in total freedom.

Jihadist;

What if the atheists are right,and there is in fact no god? Lets say for arguments sake there is no god.
Then Hitchins is a good guy for being smart enough and gutsy enough to stand up and say what needs to be said.
If there is in fact a god,then he's flat wrong.And you were right all the time.

But which is it? That is the Question.

You have been taught to believe there is a god.
So naturally you believe it.
Others haven't,so they don't believe it.
And so it goes.

Hitchins is as certain that God is a fiction,
as you are that God is a reality.

Personally I'm with Hitchins.

"Mr. Christopher Hitchens, in announcing to the world that he is an athiest is not a problem. In stating he is an anti-theist and against all religious people, he is making bigoted remarks about believers and beliefs. A bigot is someone who is intolerant and ignoranct of anyone not of the same belief, creed or race as him."

Jihadist, sometimes your posts are good - this isn't one of those times. "Anti-theist" just means that Hitchens isn't content to just walk around with his own disbelief, he thinks that the world would be a better place without religion, and, through his book, he's doing his small (and probably futile) part toward bringing that about.

This is something that most Christians consider a virtue on their side of things - "bearing witness" - "bringing people to Jesus."

Bigotry is hatred of a group of people. While Hitchens admitted to feeling some contempt for those who are religious, that is an intellectual contempt, and while not, perhaps, admirable, it doesn't rise to the level of hatred.

It's hard to have respect for people who you see as deluded and superstitious - particularly when they refuse to even look at any evidence that might change their minds, but that doesn't mean that you *hate* them. It's more like feeling sorry for them. And it's still possible for them to change that opinion - not that any of them are interested.

If you think that the other side is any different - that they're all about loving the transgressors - may I simply refer you to any of the posts by Spiderman2, Canyon Shearer, Angela B., David T., or any of the other fundamentalists who haunt these forums.

J-

In the interview, Mr. Hitchens didn't say that he is against all religious people, just that he disapproves of what they believe. I am sure that most people could be empathize with a feeling of disapproval toward some other people's beliefs or lack of belief. In religion this has been described as "love the sinner but hate the sin." People need to come to terms with the idea that some others disapprove of how they live, without taking offense and demonizing them as bigots. Atheists certainly have had to get used to this.

Best,
A

I'll make it simple.

Mr. Christopher Hitchens, in announcing to the world that he is an athiest is not a problem. In stating he is an anti-theist and against all religious people, he is making bigoted remarks about believers and beliefs. A bigot is someone who is intolerant and ignoranct of anyone not of the same belief, creed or race as him. Bigots are also prone to generalisations and stereotypings.

Mr. Christopher Hitchens is just a bigot in this way. Bigots don't have to harm anyone. Only to make bigoted remarks. He did. So, what is anyone expecting the reactions will be to bigoted remarks and the self-declared bigot?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Mr. Patel confuses the existence of different opinions with oppression. It is true that it can be distressing that there are people who sincerely disagree with one's own beliefs, but it is something we must learn to live with. Atheists in the U.S. only make up about 15% of the population, mostly keep to themselves, and are no threat to anyone. In fact, there many religious people who have united with atheists on causes such as separation of church and state because they think that society will run better this way.

Mr. Patel confuses the existence of different opinions with oppression. It is true that it can be distressing that there are people who sincerely disagree with one's own beliefs, but it is something we must learn to live with. Atheists in the U.S. only make up about 15% of the population, mostly keep to themselves, and are no threat to anyone. In fact, there many religious people who have united with atheists on causes such as separation of church and state because they think that society will run better this way.

Free speech includes the right to be offensive. Restated--and contrary to current PC-think--there is no right not to be offended. "Hate speech" and similar simplistic sound-bytes are used by, and for, people with limited appreciation for what free speech is all about at best, or with limited intellects at worst.

Ahh...but many atheists insisted that people are born into the faiths they adhere to and they don't have a choice unless they stop believing or convert to another faith.

People are also born in the countries they are born in and don't have a choice on that either unless they migrate from being Bosnian to being Canadian.

Just as people born in a specific faith mostly stick to their parents' faith with varying degree of devoutness or compliance to the tenets of the faith, so do El Savadorians and Thais live by their respective country's constitutions.

Just as people rebeled agaist faith, people also rebeled against governments or systems of governance.

Now, back to the essay.

Hitchens was explicit in stating he is anti-theist.

Perhaps it sounds acceptable to say so as one would say one is anti-Nazi or anti-Fascist or anti-Republican or anti-Democrats or anti-democracy or anti-communist.

Is theism regarded now as an "ism" as in ideological "isms" such as communism, Nazism and fascism by Hitchens?

If "theism" as a belief is regarded as an "ism", why the distinction and redifination of "atheism" as a non-belief not likewise as it has its own convictions and premises on non-belief as believers do on beliefs?

Is there a difference between being an "anti-theist" and being "anti-theism"?

Is Hitchchens saying he is pro-polytheist because he said explicitly he is anti-theist?

Is saying one is anti-theist not the same as saying one is anti-Chinese, or anti-Malay or anti-Tutsi?

Is saying one is anti-theist not the same as one is saying one is anti-Semitic?

Are theists not diversified in their religious beliefs as Jews and atheists are on their non-beliefs? There are spiritual atheists and, er, Buddhist-atheists.

Come now. Hitchens is a bigot. So is Harris. I have respect for atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, and expecially Bertrand Russell.

The point is, atheists like to say they don't have to respect the belief, but the believers, if that makes sense.

The point is, Hitchens said he is anti-theist just as one would simply say he is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic instead of anti-Judaism. Is being anti-Judaism better than being anti-Semitic?

Any which way you look at it, I recognise a bigot when I see one. Christopher Hitchens is one. You should see that.

Believers have no problems recognising Pat Robertson or Ayatollah Khomeini as excessive and extremist or as bigots. So, why can't atheists recognise that among other atheists in their pronouncements and actions?

I hate to break this to you. Back in university, Hitchens got only a third class degree upon graduation. He is still not that smart. Just look at his essays on Iraq and the Middle East.

Jacques Berlinerblau is smarter than Hitchens and Harris combined by spades.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Eboo Patel:
Right-oh, right-oh, you're standing on me right toe.

Man, I thought I was the only one to see what you saw. Being contemptuous of anyone is boorish at best, and Christopher Hitchens is contemptuous of all religionists, by his own admission.

What a Maroon! Christopher Hitchens is a waste of time. He pontificates on matters about which he knows nothing. Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps silent, but CH prates on.

Patrick,
Please get your dictionary and look up the word "obsequious." Your phrase "obsequiousness to straw man arguments" makes no sense. In fact, much of what you say makes no sense.

A specious argument, Mr Patel.

People CHOOSE their religion. You do not choose your race/ethnicity.

So, if people choose to have the religious faiths they do, then they need to be willing to accept that they will have to defend them in the face of science and reason.

peace
boxcar

A specious argument, Mr Patel.

People CHOOSE their religion. You do not choose your race/ethnicity.

So, if people choose to have the religious faiths they do, then they need to be willing to accept that they will have to defend them in the face of science and reason.

peace
boxcar

Mr Mark,

dont you get it yet?
the dejavu I mean.

Patrick aka Angela B,aka David T,aka reasonable not hateful,etc etc etc ad infinitum.
It's his m.o.

A. KAFIR,

You write " India is terrified of letting Sarkozy present an award to Taslima Nasreen because they are afraid that the Indian Muslims will go on a killing rampage".

No! India is terrified of the idea that President Sarkozy's new bride or bride-to-be (depending on in whom you place your faith [sic]) might accompany him to the 26 January Republic Day celebrations. The lady has gracefully siad that she has other appointments and won't accompany President Sarkozy.

Kurt Engelhart,

You say "Anyone with a challenge to a different system must base that challenge not on the system but on the behavior that the system supports."

I disagree. I think that the test of a belief system is the degree to which it comports with the facts. That is the only objective basis of criticism. Religious belief systems are (in general) so out of alignment with the facts that it is totally justified to call them preposterous, at the very least.

I am in sympathy with your desire to judge the tree by its fruit, so to speak, but I think there are a couple of problems with this. First, you are asking for a value judgement as the basis for criticism of belief, but value judgements exist IN THE REALM OF BELIEF, so you wind up in infinite regress. Second, behavior is situation dependent, and there's really no way to flesh out the entire spectrum of behaviors that a particular belief system would support in all plausible future situations. Love of the Fatherland sounds great in principle, but who knows what it fruit it might bear in the future.

No, the only reliable, justifiable basis of assessing the value of a particular belief system is whether or not it is TRUE, and the only reasonable measure of truth is EVIDENCE. So, when it comes to statements of objective fact, the scientific method is the only reasonable means of developing a belief system. I see no problem criticizing WHAT someone believes if they don't even know HOW to believe.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the founder of American Atheist and is the one responsible for removing prayer from America's school. She was kidnapped together with her other atheist Son and adopted daughter and all were killed by her atheist employees in her American Atheist organization.

Her other son Bill Murray (converted from atheism to Christianity) spoke critically of his mother after her disappearance:

"My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

If you like to read real life story that's as gruesome as texas chainsaw massacre then read her biography.

Speaking of hate speech, maybe it's more interesting if we see how these atheists live their lives. Mr. Patel, I hope you can make a survey as to what percentage of atheists and secularists compose prison houses. Or what religion these prisoners profess if ever they claim to be religious.

NORRIE HOYT,

You write : " An example of a cosmic law of similars that reflects back what is directed toward one?"

'Cosmic law of similars?' WOW!

The other day, I was reading a piece written by somebody -- Steve Pinker? -- who used the phrase 'a cosmic law of conservation of moral priciples' to baptise his observation that, as society evolves and taboos get debunked, other DON'Ts get added to the list.

It seems that ALL agnostics, skeptics and atheists now have their own cosmic laws.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the founder of American Atheist and is the one responsible for removing prayer from America's school. She was kidnapped together with her other atheist Son and adopted daughter and all were killed by her atheist employees in her American Atheist organization.

Her other son Bill Murray (converted from atheism to Christianity) spoke critically of his mother after her disappearance:

"My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

If you like to read real life story that's as gruesome as texas chainsaw massacre then read her biography.

Speaking of hate speech, maybe it's more interesting if we see how these atheists live their lives. Mr. Patel, I hope you can make a survey as to what percentage of atheists and secularists compose prison houses. Or what religion these prisoners profess if ever they claim to be religious.

dictionary.com lists the following as one of its definitions of discrimination, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination." Being subjected to discrimination seems to require someone to take an action against someone else because of their belief, race, gender etc. Having your feelings hurt because of abusive language, I would suggest, is not discrimination so much as simple bad manners and lack of tolerance, which seems to be rampant in our culture today. It's certainly possible to have a discussion between a believer and an atheist that is civil and not rancorous. However, the mere questioning of someone else's deepest beliefs in and of itself is considered by some to be an unacceptable attack.

I would be interested in hearing some of the examples of discrimination that the those of faith have experienced. Particularly those living in the US who are of the majority Christian religions. Given the tenor of the times, I would certainly expect that some members of minority religions have experienced true discriminatory acts.

One glaring problem with "hating" blacks or mexicans versus "hating" religious folks: nobody makes a conscious decision to be black or mexican. People make a conscious decision to be religious. You choose religion.

I am not saying that "hating" all religious folks is condoned. I am simply saying that there is leeway for criticizing people's conscious decisions.

“The religious and the irreligious have an obligation to challenge the ideas and the ideology underlying a belief system.”

Everyone has some belief system. Understanding this, anyone with a challenge to a different system must base that challenge not on the system but on the behavior that the system supports. If there is no undesirable behavior, there can be no challenge. Charitable behavior demands that the challenger not assume a superior or arrogant position because no one is free from the constraints of their own beliefs. History shows that all beliefs are subject to syncretism over time. No one’s beliefs are permanent or sacred, regardless of what we may like to believe. This fact may give us the right to influence the evolution of other’s beliefs, and allow others to influence us, but it does not give us the right to derogate others based simply on their beliefs.

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/religion.htm

PATRICK writes:

"Here every day? Arguing with people who you think believe in imaginary beings? That speaks volumes about you."

I'm not alone. Many people post here every day. It does speak volumes about me and others, and I believe it speaks volumes about this particular blog. What's your point?

There are a lot of great people on this blog, atheist and believers in imaginary things alike. A lot of really smart, funny and enjoyable people. I learn from most of them, but let's face it, there are a number of idiots hanging out here as well.

I don't argue with anyone here, not that arguing is always a negative.

Your perception of what goes on at this blog appears to be as elementary as your world view. Drop in more often and you'll have a better understanding of things.

"Back? I'm here almost every day, much to my chagrin."

Here every day? Arguing with people who you think believe in imaginary beings? That speaks volumes about you. Once again your sense of context is sorely lacking. Every day ? Wow.

Yes, yes, dear ... I know. The poor little overwhelming majority is being ridiculed again.

In the grand tradition of suffering for one's religion, you fancy yourself the victim. You can't get any respect.

Never mind that your overwhelming majority puts all our necks under your boot heel as you seek to codify your medieval fascism into law, even to the point of amending the Constitution of the United States.

A typical tactic of the extremist, you conveniently fail to recollect any instance of belittling people for not sharing your superstitions in the blogosphere. Or how many are executed or tortured for daring to not take your superstition for granted.

No, of course not -- this isn't about an objective analysis. It's all about putting a patch on your fragile reality bubble.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a nation founded on the principle of separation of church and state, and you can't stand it.

The fact of the matter is, with ever increasing regularity, people who do not share your superstitions are no longer afraid to speak the truth as they see it, not unlike the way you've been speaking your medieval version of truth unchallenged for so many years. And you can't take that, either.

The fact is, more people have died over arguing whose imaginary daddy figure in the sky was the real one than you care to acknowledge. And you'll never be able to deal with that fact.

Please don't try to blow smoke up my skirt. It's unbecoming of someone with your intellect.

You bemoan the demonization of religious groups by the non-theistic yet the very religions that these groups follow demonize everyone that doesn't think and believe like they do. If Harris/Hitchens are engaging in 'hate speech', then so are the authors of the bible and koran.

Why should your so-called holy book get a free pass while Hitchens/Harris do not?

You reap what you sow.

If you want your beliefs to be respected, maintain respectable beliefs.

Believers are called to be witnesses. So I say to you- Words will not kill- you must please address hateful acts before you speak against "hate speech":

"The sad reality of Muslim Arab racism as they murder, kill and burn their black Muslim 'brothers' in the Sudan and Darfur region.

The history of conflict between these two racial groups is long and for recent years this conflict has grown and there has been a genocide of the black people of the Sudan, Darfur region is horrible.

The nomadic Muslim Arabs are trying to kill off the black Muslim land holders who are in their way.

The Muslim world has turned a blind eye because the Muslim media is predominately Arab and does not want to show what is happening to the Black Muslims in the Sudan and Darfur.

Most of the media has not focused on this massacre and hopefully someone will stop the killing of innocent black Africans in the area by Arab racists.

The racism and genocide has to stop."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdpwrqH7Jo

Thank you.

PATRICK writes:
"Well, well Mr. Mark is back after all."

Back? I'm here almost every day, much to my chagrin.

I don't notice Patrick here every day. Perhaps he's the one who is "back?"

Patrick writes of Kim:

"He is a man putting himself as a GOD, much like Hitler and Stalin. He then as a man, requires obedience or death."

Sounds like Jesus to me. At least the death one suffered under Kim, Hitler or Stalin was limited to this world. Jesus makes sure you suffer for eternity. Not even Yahweh in the OT condemned non-believers to eternal suffering.

Nice guy, that Jesus.

PAM, thanks for making my point in a way. All those animals do those things because God created them and ways for them to live and prosper. I strongly disagree with your other premise, left to our own devices, mankind will steal, kill and do all sorts of nasty things. Societies can be built on very horrible premises, nazi germany, khmer rouge, etc. By the way anyone who thinks our pop culture is a friend to our children is out of their minds. Look who is a celebrity, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan etc.

Mr. Patel,

You write " If you insult race or ethnicity in this day and age, you are treated like a pariah. If you insult religion, you are nominated for a National Book Award (as Hitchens was). "

When I was doing my university studies in Canada in the early 1970's, if girls 17 years old did not have a steady boyfriend, they were made to feel worse than lepers. In my case, a good Gujrati Muslim like you, everyone (my male friends, as well as girls who thought that a healthy, clean, well-dressed, mathematics-savvy young chap who was on a fat Commonwealth Scholarship would make a nice date) used to ask me, when I allowed my shyness to show : "Is everything all right with you?" I did not quite feel like a leper, but I hated myself for my inhibitions, because I was dying to let loose and enjoy myself, but allowed my misguided sense of morality to get in the way (yes, I thought then and I still think now that it was misguided and I encourage my son not to make the misatke I made, but my wife thinks that I am the one who is leading him astray).

But then, not much longer after I had started working, there was the HIV pandemic and, at one point, I really thought that the world around me was going mad because the beahaviour of people around you made you feel that it was a badge of honour to be HIV positive.

Now, as you point out, it is irreligiosity that is the test of normalcy.

Why! I have been quoting Freeman Dyson's Templetion Award acceptance lecture, in which he praises an enlightened form of religiosity, more often and with more enthusiasm than I quote verses of the Holy Quran enjoining tolerance nd praising the Almighty's infinite mercy.

But then, lo and behold, with Craig Venter's recent announcement that his lab has been able to create 'artificial life', it is the same Freeman Dyson who, while presenting his paper during the recent, Janury 7, 2008 Edge Special Event at Eastover Farm, proclaims that "gods are out"!

I only hope that he does not mean that religiosity is also out, spirituality is out and a morality that has dimensions that are universally applicable is also out.

But them I told myself "Praise be to Allah Subhaana-Wata'ala", when, watching Swiss TV news yesterday, I heard the news-reader say that the Davos World Economic Forum organisers managed to get Mohammad Khatami and a famed German religion-basher (Inititator of the Anti-Minaret movement, according to the newsreader) on the same platfomr to debate the relevance of religiosity. The audience (the conference hall was packed) got to arbitrate who had won. Who did? Khatami. As soon as the debate was over, Khatami politely excused himself and furtively walked out.

I disagree. I am religious (Episcopalian) and I am not offended by Hitchens (or any other atheist and agnostic). Indeed, their arguments help me understand my own religious beliefs. I would argue that those are are offended have too little faith; after all, why would a religiuos person be offended by the irreligious. And it cannot be because the religious (as opposed to those of a particular religion) are discriminated against. In the US, atheists and agnostics are on the level of communists (or worse, child molestors); wouldn't want to befriend one, as the lightning may strike you as well. Hitchens' view (if I could be so bold) is that the religious are not only insipid but dangerous. (Or as Volaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.) I take the enlightenment view, that reason and religion are not exclusive. If religion derives from reason, I'm religious; if religion derives from revealed truth (faith) alone, I'm with Hitchens.

Mr. Patel,

Congratulations for not being interested in banning Hitchens or Harris.

I've been reading through several of the comments made above and I have the following to add as my two cents:

I believe that Dr. Patel has raised a very valid concern. We have unfortunately come to a point where people are looked down upon simply for being religious. What's important to realize is that for many, the drive and motivation to do good, give time to service, promote peace, tolerance, and pluralism: These values are often stem from our religious upbringing and furthermore, it is often through our religious communities, centers, and related institutions that we are informed of ways and means to help the more marginalized. There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion and I fear that we are moving towards the latter.

With that said, I do agree with what many of the commentors have said above; that there is a clear distinction to be made between insulting a group of people because of the color of their skin and slamming people because of their beliefs. The analogy wasn't perfect by any means.

Even so, I believe what Dr. Patel may have been driving at is that the danger in such rhetoric is that it makes dangerous generalizations. To say that ALL black people, mexicans, basketball players, hollywood actors, teenagers, or people of faith can be clumped in one category and assigned specific characteristics based on what one persons opinion is arrogant, and dangerous.

What's caused this? I think when you break it down far enough it's just that the religious extremists are succeeding in convincing people that their radical, aggressive movement is what Faith is all about.

Osama bin Laden makes the news every time he releases a new video, despite the fact that he (thankfully) hasn't backed any of his threats up for the good part of a decade. What does the Aga Khan get for building infrastructure and centers for learning in the poorest parts of the world? Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell would easily make the news every time they bashed gays, and those who are pro-choice. The harsher and more degrading their words, the more likely it would get covered. What about the thousands of Christian authority figures who preach daily about peace, tolerance, and respect for one another?

And to top it all off, we eat it all up, completely ignoring the millions who have been motivated to do good, not despite of, but as a consequence of their faith.

Hate speech: “speech intended to DEGRADE, INTIMIDATE, or incite violence or PREJUDICIAL ACTION against a PERSON or GROUP of people..."

What could be MORE inteded to degrade and intimidate than to threaten someone with eternal torture and defilement in the flames of Hell? It would seem that religion is the most hateful speech of all!

TO HUMANITY:

People, it seems lots of people, are going to be in for quite a surprise.

It doesn't matter to me if anyone on this planet believes or not that God is REAL, yet nevertheless He Is.

Some of the people that do not believe that God is real will be quite pleasantly surprised to find out that not only is He real but that He is a Being of Love.

Some of the people that do believe in God are going to be rather unpleasantly surprised to find out that God is a Being of Pure Love.

Take care, be ready, see you, all of humanity, in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Patrick,
Non-believers don't get their morals from "pop-culture", and certainly not from Paris Hilton.

Despite what you'd clearly like to believe, we don't run around leading lives of depraved debauchery, doing whatever we wish, whenever it occurs to us.

You may think your morals come from your religion, but I'd be willing to bet that if you'd been raised somewhere where you'd never heard of God or the Bible, that you would have morals similar to those you have now. You still wouldn't kill, or steal, or lie egregiously.

This, believe it or not, is part of our animal nature. All social animals, from chimpanzees to ants, have rules and codes of behavior that enable them to get along in the groups they live in, because they depend for their safety on being part of that group. Any behavior that is detrimental to order and cohesiveness is selected against - by other group members, and ultimately, by failure of reproductive success.

Our "morals" are as innate and instinctive as are those of a pack of wolves or a colony of prairie dogs. Read almost any book by Frans de Waal.

race and ethniticity are things we can't change or alter and should not be denigraded or stereotyped. people should not be judged by that which they can't control. religious choice is something we arrive at through thought (typically lack of) processes, fear and laziness and should be completely open to criticism. get your little feelings off your sleeve and get on with life. the 'four horsemen' have valid points.

An atheist like Mr. Hitchens may lose respect for religious people: So what is the big deal? At least he will not blow you up.

Look at Islam's toll today- 10 blown up in Christian part of Lebanon, daily killings/beheadings/suicides in Thailand, Pak, Aghan,Iraq, Kashmir.... All in the name of Islam.

I rather have an atheist lose respect for me (than have my head chopped off by an Islamist).

Well, well Mr. Mark is back after all. You have a wonderful tortured logic about you. He is a man putting himself as a GOD, much like Hitler and Stalin. He then as a man, requires obedience or death. You are the type of person who sees a policeman and a murderer each running with a gun and reasons that there is no difference between them. You have a great deal of difficulty with context. But at least your posts are amusing for their obsequiousness to straw man arguments.

I kind of identify with Hitchens. I think it's great that people are committed to their faith, but at the same time, many faiths have oppressed and suppressed people and ideas that didn't agree with theirs. I think what Hitchens was talking about was that he believes this as well and thus has less respect for them.

PATRICK writes:
"JAMESLS-has obviously never been to the atheist paradise of North Korea. Where atheism rules supreme and all believers are severely punished."

Are you kidding?

N Korea is not at all atheistic. Kim Jong Il is worshipped as a GOD, and not only a god, but the re-incarnated god of his father who was also a god.

Just because Kim doesn't claim to be Yahweh, Jesus, Allah or any other major religion god doesn't mean that he doesn't consider himself to be a god. Neither does it mean that his subjects don't consider him to be a god.

Atheism is a disbelief in any gods. N Koreans worship Kim as a god. By definition, they cannot be atheists because they believe their ruler is a god There need be no elaborate theology attached to his godhood for him to be a god in his own country.

The true statement is this: if you wish to see what the Christian heaven will look like, then look to N Korea, where a god is worshipped day and night by a hapless and helpless group of believers who are forced to pay homage and bow down before their god in supplication 24/7.

Doc, as a person of faith, my sense of morality come from God. He as my creator has the authority to tell me right from wrong. He knows humanity, loves humanity and created humanity. I feel that a non believer takes their morality from pop culture and the swaying winds of popular opinion. When people like paris hilton are considered role models (rich, pretty, famous), you have a problem. If you choose your own morality you have no more authority than the next person. And then you have a no morality. My life is worth more than being a good citizen, paying taxes and trying to emulate Paris Hilton's celebrity lifestyle. Yours is too, It was given to you by GOD. It is special.

Dear Victoria -

Thanks for the comment. A few points:

1. I see nothing in Mr Hitchens' position that would qualify as being "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people." So, by the Wikipedia definition of the phrase "hate speech," Mr Hitchens has not engaged in the same.

2. Both you and Mr Patel are basing the definition of "hate speech" on a Wikipedia entry. I didn't know that Wikipedia had any standing whatsoever as either a dictionary, an encyclopedia or any other type of legitimate reference source. To their credit, Wikipedia has posted the following disclaimer on their "hate speech"page as a banner:

"This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."

That in and of itself rather knocks the pilings out of the foundation of using a Wikipedia entry as the basis of a column, doesn't it?

Word of advice to Victoria - don't assume or accept that Wikipedia's "definition" of hate speech or anything else is an accepted definition, especially when Wikipedia itself issues a disclaimer and refuses to stand behind the "definition" appearing on its pages.

3. Mr Patel makes the childish mistake of calling honest, reasonable and well-supported statements of Mr Hitchens hate speech, and then adds insult to injury by equating his statements to racism through the example Mr Patel supplies. The fact is that Mr Patel could well have made a case on hair color and I would have agreed with that analogy, but Patel couldn't resist the urge to posit a racist example, and that example was a false example by any measure.

Gotta go.

Patrick,

This is the problem with people who are "religious." Why do you think that religion has the monopoly on morality? Why do you need to be afraid of something/someone (God) to be moral in this world? Morality comes from how one is raised by his/her parents and family. Morality should be present in society because it is the right thing to do. People should not be scared into treating people the way they would like to be treated. No one has the monopoly on morality, especially religion. If you have actually read a history book, not a religious doctrine, religion has been a major source of IMMORALITY since its inception.

JAMESLS-has obviously never been to the atheist paradise of North Korea. Where atheism rules supreme and all believers are severely punished. That is what happens when man tries to live separately form God, just as Stalin tried to impose. It leads to death and degradation. You live in a civilization built upon 2000 years of christian principles of mercy and justice. That was part of HITCHEN'S brothers essay on is rebuttal of his brother. His rebuttal is very powerful. Read it sometime

For thousands of years religious people of all types have been (and still are) torturing and killing non-believers and different-believers all over world. The religious people have (and still do) justify the torture and killing of their victims by stating that their god requires them to punish our apostasy. Yet, now that we have laws to protect our free speech (at least in this country) and we rightfully lash out at our persecutors with (only) harsh words, Mr. Patel declares these harsh words to be 'hate' speech. I suggest, Mr. Patel, that while sticks and stones have surely broken our bones, harsh words are at last protected and acceptable forms of free speech.

Eboo,

Your logical is terribly faulty. Had Hitchens proudly stated his contempt for black people, or said that he immediately loses respect for people once he finds out they are Mexican, he would be basing an opinion solely on a person's appearance. When he states that he immediately loses respect for someone once he finds out that s/he is religious, he is merely indicating that he immediately becomes suspicious the individual may hold the kinds of irrational views he, Sam Harris and others have identified in their books. It was after all wacky religious views that movitated the otherwise seemingly normal perpetrators of 9/11. Hitchens has every right to begin to feel a little uneasy when someone begins to show signs of religious zealotry.

Obviously not all religious people are racist or bigots or intolerant. That is an easy argument to be made. There are degrees of "regligious" depending up the person. But how do you make the argument that religon isn't a main source for why human beings do not get along? Since the dawn of time religion has been used to denegrate others and will continue to do so.
I guess the real question is do you blame religion or do you blame the men that are in charge of or follow religion?

Mr. Patel - I agree that believers are targets for discrimination from non-believers, just as non-believers are persecuted for their lack of belief by believers.

As an athiest, I admittedly find it occassionally difficult to maintain civility when discussing religion with a believer. There is such a fundamental difference in our worldviews...much more so than the differences between religious groups. My view is there is no god. It's not that I believe in god and simply reject the dogma of organized religion...it's just that there is no god. Period.

Any religious person would obviously hold a different view. It is this difference which can cause breakdowns in communication. Another reason would be the sensitive nature of the topic. There is no criticism of Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam that I can make (as an atheist) that would be seen as contructive.

It's important for atheists everywhere to realize that religion isn't a problem...but people can be ignorant jerks, or worse. This, of course, applies to the believer and atheist alike. There are idiots everywhere.

Craig

I laugh at the vitrol I see in these blogs and what it stems from. People who have no faith are afraid of what faith requires-Accountability. To God.Much easier to say No God, therefore I can do what I want. Get drunk, screw around, just worry about my needs, live in a me me me world. God gives you this choice but he holds you accountable. We will see when that last breath is leaving you, who you call out to... It won't be your boss, not your banker,not a blog on the washington post, it will to be God. Fortunately, God loves his children so much, you will still have time with that last breath to accept him. So blog away, quote whatever, because it doesn't change a thing, We are God's children and he rules supreme.

When Hitchens says "religion 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." he is not insulting a person or a race of people. He is talking about a philosophy, not a person. I see nothing at all wrong with defining a philosophy anyway you want, good or evil. There's a real difference between saying someone is stupid because they are black or white or Chinese or American, and saying someone is stupid because they believe that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago. Mr. Patel is crying about people "discriminating against Christians" as if he and the rest of the Christians in this country are afraid of the tiny minority of non-religious people. Quit whining, Mr. Patel. Nobody is telling you that you can't go to church or you can't continue to run your organization. You have nothing to fear. One would think that just maybe you have doubts about your faith if you feel threatened by the fact that someone criticises your religiousness.

"Here is the Wikipedia definition of hate speech: “speech intended to DEGRADE, INTIMIDATE, or incite violence or PREJUDICIAL ACTION against a PERSON or GROUP of people based on their RACE, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, RELIGION, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.”

to say mr patel's analogy is not a valid one
doesnt hold water-

mr mark stated-"Trying to equate Hitchens' statement on religion with racism is really quite childish".

the definition is of HATE CRIMES.
no value is placed upon the various examples-

to say the analogy has no equivalence because people do not choose their race- but can choose their religion avoids the point of the article.

one can also choose their political or maoral affiliation, nationality, gender identity, religion, occupation and even appearance.

thats a full 7 out of 15 exaqmples given.

mr patel could have equated it with hair color, and i doubt mr mark would have made the same supposition.

"racism is hating people for being who they are by birth."

as is gender, ethnicity,disability-

but the subject is overall xenophobia- and hate speech.

mr patel did not make the equation between the various groups which have suffered from hate speech (of which astrologers and alchemists are included by their being occupations)

and people have the right to be protected from hate speech (which includes atheism in this definition) if it is directed at them from a conscious choice they have made also.

mr marks seems to be making a value judgement- when all hate speech has at its core unreasonable prejudice-

i always say bigotry is uglyno matter whose mouth it comes out of-
it becomes no more palatable from mr hitchens or mr harris's mouth than from the frothing mouth of any other

to repsond to mr patels statement which points out the unfairness and inequality of standards applied,
with anger,and distaste,
instead of a reasonable asessment of the point-
(we all are held accountable to equal standards of expressing hate speech, and none is acceptable)
indicates a support for hate speech when one agrees with the hate speech message.

The difference between Harris’ comments on religionists and hate speech based on race etc. is that religion is a choice, and often an irrational choice. Race, gender etc. are not chosen but innate to us, and sorry but religion is not innate, although it is highly highly culturally conditioned. Also, the author demonstrates his ignorance in another way: “It blatantly states that award-winning writers will think less of you if you …. sit in meditation with your grandparents.” Harris does Zen meditation (although not all Zen practitioners would agree with everything Harris says) so he is not hostile to all forms of religion.

BOBBY MCGEE asks:
"are there any religious arguments that come from this page that are reasonable and not just based on supposed victimhood or bald-faced belief in self superiority?"

No, there aren't, and judging from the typical posts of the religious columnists and bloggers at On Faith, the chances of things improving in that respect are not good.

The fool does indeed say in his heart "There is no God."

The wise man shouts it from the rooftops!

Mr Patel poses a silly "apples vs. oranges" argument that any self feeding high schooler should be able to see right through.

Is there any religious arguments that come from this page that are reasonable and not just based on supposed victimhood or bald-faced belief in self superiority?

PATRICK writes:
"Whenever I hear Hitchens's spew his smug,hate filled nonsense, I remember what the bible says "The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

Yawn!

Yet another believer trollops out the Xian's favorite bromide to smugly affirm to themselves - and no one else - that the intellect is THE ENEMY.

And yet, these same believers never have the guts to quote Bible verses that show that Paul and Jesus himself called upon believers to be fools.

So, what's so bad about being a fool? Why do Xians think they can have it both ways? Being a fool by not believing in god=bad. Being a fool for Christ=good. Pathetic.

I'd think that any Xian wishing to follow the teachings of the Bible and to become a "fool for Christ," could do much worse than starting their commission by saying in their hearts, "there is no god."

And right about now, Patrick will be pulling out the "you need to read it in context" excuse for another contradictory Biblical idiocy.

Honestly, saying that someone is stupid, wrong, intellectually faulty, or anything else because of an opinion or belief they hold is not anything like hate speech.

I'd like to know exactly what kind of "discrimination" these religious people experienced -- Couldn't rent an apartment? Denied a promotion at work? Religious people are the overwhelming majority in this country, and there are virtually no non-religious elected officials, so it's very hard to believe that there's widespread anti-relgious discrimination going on.

Ever notice how full of hate non believers are here? Because they have no base of reference, only themselves and their lonely sense of superiority and self. I live in a world created by a loving God, with guidance and promises from God. They live in a world of self centeredness, loneliness and slavish devotion to self. That comes out in their posts here. I feel sorry for them.

Whenever I hear Hitchens's spew his smug,hate filled nonsense, I remember what the bible says "The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

Such talk may not be civil or illuminating, but it is dead accurate. And it is high time you so-called "religious" folks accept your part of the blame. Non-religious folks have stood by silently and respectfully while you've attempted to cram your beliefs down our throats. We have been civil while you tried to get the secular government to adopt your beliefs, to fund your churches, to discriminate based on your moral views, etc. Well, we've had enough. I am sick to death of the hypocritical religious being sanctimonious about their beliefs, and attempting to use the government that we ALL pay for to further THEIR beliefs. You want civility and respect? Then start showing it first. Stop telling people that they are going to hell, that you are their moral superior, etc. Damn, here in Washington, DC, every church just EXPECTS as a matter of course that the entire city should suffer for their beliefs, by doing things like double-parking everybody into their parking spot while they attend church service! They really assume that since it is an act done in worship of their God, you just have to bear the burden for them!

"Faith Talk in the Gutter

"» Eboo Patel | In assessing hate speech, why do Hitchens and Harris get a free pass?"

Could it be because they are returning like for like? - An example of a cosmic law of similars that reflects back what is directed toward one?

Jihadist,

Sorry, but you are doing the exact same thing as Eboo - a clumsy attempt at bait and switch.

Look at your comment. You say that athiests ascribe some sort of infallibility to Hitchens and Harris, but in fact there isn't a single atheist anywhere that believes in infallibility of any kind whatsoever. And niether Harris nor Hitchens would ever make such a preposterous, grandeous claim (well, Harris wouldn't anyway). Those types of delusions and lies are a peculiarly RELIGIOUS attribute.

Regarding the time you look to, when athiests are honest and brave? That time is NOW! Religion is a disease of the mind. This isn't extreme or irrational - it's the plain truth. Of course, religious TRADITIONS have some value, but that value has nothing to do with the defining attributes of religion. The traditions are simply the "hook".

Your statement about athiests not being honest or brave is certainly "sweeping", don't you think? Of course Harris and Hitchens are making sweeping statements. They have the broom!

The Hitchenians and Harrisians spewing scriptures of Harris and Hitchens on God and religion and beliefs as if they are the infallible logic writ?

Whatever.

Harris and Hitchens do make sweeping statements on beliefs and believers of course. Both do make generalisations on believers and beliefs that are no less bigoted than a racist or sexist would make on ethnic groups or gender.

We look to a time when atheists would be honest and brave enough to admit there are atheists with "extremist" and "irrational" notions and "facts" on believers and beliefs that are less than correct, or plainly silly.

Atheist doth protest too much when their loved writers are criticised.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Mr. Patel is quite a blunderer when it comes to his usual BAD FAITH debate tactic of bait and switch. Last week he tried to channel some of the anger against Mr. Ghandi towards Ms. Hisri Ali. This week, as Mr. Mark eloquently points out, he is trying to channel some of the "righteous anger" that people have against racists towards people like Hitchens and Harris who simply speak clearly and accurately about religion. But race is a color - none is any more true or consequential than another. Religious belief, whether chosen or not, DOES have a truth value: FALSE. One can imagine Mr. Patel pouring over their books and interview transcripts looking for bile, but the quotations he ended up posting strike me as obvious statements of fact.

Religion is superstition. It corrupts the mind. It corrodes the soul. It blinds the believer to nature and replaces it with a farcical narrative of idiocy and intolerance. It steals the inherent dignity of man and claims it as its own, leaving only the basest remnants for man himself. It insinuates itself into every facet of existence. It shifts social and political power towards the most craven and despicable segment of the population. It diverts wealth, labor and goodwill towards vain and useless ends. It wages war against every form of progress. It wages war even against every other idiotic narrative. It is poison.

It is time to slough of the ignorant edifice of religious belief, and the first step is for those of us who are undeluded to stop speaking and acting deferentially when it comes to religion. We must be enablers no more.

Mr. Patel,

Religion is an ideology. Ethnicity and race are not. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

Its like this, we all know that only a Muslim will try to blow up a plane in mid air along with himself. Because of that we all have to go through the security system, even the 80 year old war veteran with metal knees has to be checked and re-checked before boarding the plane. We all pay for what Muslims started.
Same thing here, Hitchens actually wants to talk about Islam and the power its fanatics hold, so they don't like even the orange clad budhist. So the only violent culprit here is Islam and its damn fatwas.

my emal address is attached. I missed putting it in the previous comments I wrote....

Patel writes:

"And here is Christopher Hitchens, in a video displayed prominently on the
home page of this site, proudly proclaiming his contempt for religious people, and stating that he immediately loses respect for someone once he finds out that s/he is religious.

"What if Hitchens had proudly stated his contempt for black people, or said that he immediately loses respect for people once he finds out they are Mexican?"
.
,
.
Bad analogy. Not at all apt, most obviously because Hitchens never has and probably never will makes such racist statements, though that doesn't seem to preclude Mr Patel from putting such racist language into an imaginary Hitchens' mouth.

No, a statement inline with what Hitchens says about religion and religious people would be,

"What if Hitchens had proudly stated his contempt for alchemists, or said that he immediately loses respect for people once he finds out they are astrologers?"

Trying to equate Hitchens' statement on religion with racism is really quite childish, Mr Patel. No one chooses to be born black, or Mexican, or female, or male, or white or whatever. Racism is hating people for being who they are by birth.

Nobody is religious by birth. No one is born a Christian or a Muslim. Ideally, one would get to choose their own religion, but for most people, their parents make that decision for them. Rarely is the decision made to raise kids as freethinkers/atheists/agnostics.

Hitchens point is that religion and belief in non-existent supernatural beings is on par with believing in alchemy or astrology, two disproved ways of trying to explain the world. No one would propose holding an alchemy class after the chemistry class, nor an astrology class after an astronomy class, yet that's exactly what the religious do when they insist that their specious explanations of the world have equal bearing with those explanations that have been tried and tested to be true by science.

Patel is engaging in some pretty rank victimhood in this column. It's stinking up the place. Please stop.

If one wanted to wildly express distain for a group, how about picking doctors and drug companies for the over use of prescription drugs that was also featured on GMA today? Anyone can pick almost pet peeve and shout it about in this fine country.

Lets remember, we (Interfaith Youth Corp) are about dialog. Ground rules for dialog only allow others to have their opinions if they are not "selling" those opinions. In true dialog we listen to understand and question to understand further. We look for similarities AND differences and embrace both.

Those referenced above are not dialoging and don't wish to. They seem to have an overriding ajenda of personal promotion. Therefore, their comments and opinions are not worthy of recognition by us.

We knew going in there is great historical and emotional baggage associated with religion. We have been taught to pre-judge. That is a given. No need to fuss about those who are clearly not interested in being part of the solution.

Eboo,

You are missing the key point of the issues being raised by Sam Harris and Hitchens.
A human cannot change his race or his ethnicity. But it is clear that he can change his opinions, his beliefs, his faith, etc. The religious and the irreligious have an obligation to challenge the ideas and the ideology underlying a belief system.

You are now seeking allies among the religious. The christians, the jews, the hindus, the buddhists, the zorastrians are long accustomed to hearing charges much worse than what Sam Harris and Hitchens are doling out that you quote. The hindus of India, your country of origin, were told in no uncertain terms how filthy and how awful their faith was for centuries and centuries. Would you like to see the analysis of the Muslims of India levelled against the hindus?

Muslims like yourself are not used to being challenged and questioned forthrightly about your beliefs. The non-muslims are and have been for a long long time. India is terrified of letting Sarkozy present an award to Taslima Nasreen because they are afraid that the Indian Muslims will go on a killing rampage. The Danes are worried stiff and withdrawing their embassy people because they expect the muslims will go on a killing rampage around the world as Geert releases his movie on Islam sometime next week.

Guess what? The people are sick and tired of being bullied by the mindless followers of Islam and will not allow the muslims to limit their rights to free speech. So get used to it. Islam will be questioned, will be examined, and will be challenged around the world and especially over the net. All religions are including the irreligious. Do a search of Hitchens and Harris and see the withering criticism they come under.

When you make a claim that Quran is THE direct and literal word of Allah and Muhammad is the perfect man and mercy to all creation, well then be prepared to defend the free and open detailed examination of such an outrageous claim. As the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs", and hence the religious are being asked to provide those extraordinary proofs because they certainly do make some way way out there extraordinary claims.